People v. Garcia

Opinion

STONE (W. A.), J.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant David Garcia pled no contest to one count of petty theft with a prior conviction (Pen.

[100]

Code, §§ 666/488) and, in an unrelated municipal court case, single counts of driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2) and alcohol-related reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103.5). The court placed appellant on probation for two years and imposed various conditions of probation. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we will conclude that the court did not err in imposing a probation condition requiring narcotics testing. In the published portion, we will conclude that the probation condition that appellant not associate with any felons, ex-felons or users or sellers of narcotics was unconstitutionally overbroad. Accordingly, we will modify the judgment and otherwise affirm.

Facts

Appellant pled no contest to the theft of a handgun. At the preliminary hearing, the victim testified that she and appellant lived together. She testified further that one morning appellant “came [into her bedroom] and walked over [her] on the bed, being . . . very intoxicated, grabbed the gun. . . . He . . . left ... the house. And that’s when it was taken.”

According to the probation report, appellant’s prior criminal record includes a 1983 conviction for possession of marijuana, a 1984 conviction for “Drunk Driving,” and a 1985 conviction for “Riding a Bicycle While Under the Influence of Alcohol.”

The court imposed numerous conditions of probation, including ordering appellant to “Submit to narcotic[s] testing as directed by the Probation Officer [and] . . . . [H] Not associate with . . . any felons, ex-felons, users or sellers of narcotics.”

Discussion

I

General Principles

Appellant contends both of the above conditions “are unreasonable and overbroad, and[] . . . should be deemed invalid.” We disagree.