People v. Perez CA6

Filed 12/11/13 P. v. Perez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H038895 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1074952)

v.

FATIMA YOLANDA PEREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Fatima Yolanda Perez was placed on probation in two separate cases for public assistance-related fraud and driving under the influence. On appeal, she challenges the alcohol-related probation conditions imposed in the felony fraud case only. Finding no error, we will affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND On August 21, 2012, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant entered no contest pleas in two criminal cases. In CC943198, defendant admitted to driving with a blood alcohol level of .15 or higher (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (b), 23578) and driving without a valid license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)), misdemeanors occurring on April 9, 2009. At that hearing, the court found a factual basis for the plea, noting that defendant’s blood alcohol level was .15 according to the blood test results. In C1074952, the subject of this appeal, defendant pleaded to fraud in obtaining CalWorks and food stamps, a felony occurring between August 2007 and January 2009. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2).) This offense involved defendant

misrepresenting her employment status and the number of children in her custody to the Department of Social Services, resulting in the overpayment of public assistance. On October 11, 2012, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence in both cases and placed defendant on concurrent formal probation for three years. With respect to defendant’s driving under the influence conviction, the probation report contained several alcohol-related recommendations: That defendant (1) submit to chemical testing as directed by the probation officer; (2) not possess or consume alcohol, or knowingly go places where alcohol is the primary item of sale; and (3) enter and complete a substance abuse treatment program as directed by the probation officer. At the sentencing hearing the probation department requested that these alcohol-related conditions be added to the terms of defendant’s probation for the welfare fraud case. The department requested the alcohol conditions in both cases “to keep them consistent.” Counsel for defendant voiced her position that the alcohol-related probation conditions were appropriate for the driving under the influence case but not the welfare fraud case. The trial court disagreed, citing People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 626 (recognizing gang association prohibition as promoting Penal Code section 1203.1’s rehabilitation and public safety goals by forbidding conduct reasonably related to future criminal activity). The court explained that an important and rational relationship existed between the alcohol-related conditions and defendant’s rehabilitation given defendant’s DUI conviction. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging those probation conditions. II. DISCUSSION Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (j), vests the trial court with discretion to “impose and require . . . [such] reasonable [probation] 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, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the