People v. Lindsay

Opinion

MERRILL, Acting P. J.

Appellant Jack David Lindsay appeals from the trial court’s sentence following his plea of guilty. Appellant contends that the court erred in imposing a condition regarding his abstinence from alcohol as one of the terms of his probation. We affirm.

Procedural background

Appellant was charged with a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, sale of cocaine. He entered a plea of guilty conditioned on a promise that he would not serve time in state prison. Imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation. One of the conditions of probation was that appellant abstain from consuming any alcoholic beverages.

Discussion

In granting probation, the trial court has broad discretion to impose conditions which will promote rehabilitation and protect the public.

(People

v.

Palillo

(1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1579 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 456].) Penal Code

[1644]

section 1203.1 provides that in ordering probation, the court “may impose and require . . . other reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, . . . and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer . ...” A condition of probation imposed under this section is not invalid unless it: “(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality . . . .”

(People

v.

Burgener

(1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 532 [224 Cal.Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251], quoting

People