People v. Beal

Opinion

McINTYRE, J.

Gloria Elizabeth Beal pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale and possession of methamphetamine. The court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Beal on three years’ probation,

[86]

subject to various conditions, including that she abstain from the use of alcohol dining that period, She appeals, contending that the court erred in imposing alcohol abstention as a condition of probation. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Discussion

Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (a) provides that the court may suspend the imposition or execution of a sentence and grant probation “upon those terms and conditions as it shall determine.” In granting probation, the trial court has broad discretion to impose conditions “to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety.”

(People

v.

Carbajal

(1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120 [43 Cal.Rptr.2d 681, 899 P.2d 67].)

The trial court’s discretion, although broad, is nonetheless subject to the limitation that conditions must be “reasonable." (Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (j).) A condition is valid 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.

Lent

(1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 [124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545], quoting

People

v.

Dominguez

(1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 623, 627 [64 Cal.Rptr. 290].)

A condition of probation that requires or forbids conduct that is not itself criminal is valid if the conduct is reasonably related to the underlying crime or to future criminality.