California Court of Appeal Feb 13, 2014 No. D063645Unpublished
Filed 2/13/14 P. v. Stangl CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D063645
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD243182)
GARY WILLIAM STANGL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Amalia L.
Meza, Judge. Affirmed.
Cannon & Harris and Donna L. Harris for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Marissa
Bejarano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Gary William Stangl appeals certain conditions of probation imposed on him by
the trial court following his guilty plea to assault with caustic chemicals (Pen. Code,
§ 244). We conclude that the probation conditions challenged by Stangl are reasonable
based on his prior criminal history, and we accordingly affirm the judgment.
entire circumstances of [the defendant's] background and the crime for which he was
convicted, must be carefully scrutinized." (In re Martinez (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 577,
584.)
The alcohol condition was reasonable because the probation officer's report shows
that Stangl has a history of criminal offenses related to alcohol and drug use.
Specifically, Stangl had a previous conviction for driving under the influence in 1992
(Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), along with an earlier arrest for driving under the
influence in 1989 in Utah. Stangl also had convictions for possession of a controlled
substance in 1992 and 1994, and he admitted to the probation officer that he had last used
methamphetamine in 2012. Courts have observed that alcohol and drug abuse are
reasonably related for the purpose of imposing alcohol conditions to prevent future
criminality. (People v. Beal (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 84, 87 ["alcohol use may lead to
future criminality where the defendant has a history of substance abuse and is convicted
of a drug-related offense"]; see People v. Smith (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1035
[noting the "nexus between drug use and alcohol consumption"].)
"Whether an alcohol-use condition of probation is an abuse of the trial court's
discretion is determined by the particular facts of each case." (People v. Lindsay (1992)
10 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1644.) Here, under the particular facts of this case — namely
Stangl's criminal history — even though there was no evidence that the current offense
was related to alcohol, it was within the trial court's discretion to conclude that the
alcohol condition would reasonably prevent future criminality. Specifically, the alcohol
5
condition would help Stangl avoid future alcohol-related crimes like his prior instances of
driving under the influence. (See People v. Burton (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 382, 390 [in
assessing reasonableness of alcohol-related probation conditions, court considered
whether "appellant had ever been convicted of an alcohol-related offense"].)
The document condition was also reasonable based on Stangl's criminal history.
Specifically, the probation officer's report shows that in 1994 Stangl was convicted of
giving false identification to a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)). The trial
court could reasonably conclude that to prevent another such incident and therefore deter
future criminality, the probation conditions should specifically prohibit Stangl from
knowingly using or possessing any stolen, forged, counterfeit or fraudulent documents.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing probation conditions regarding alcohol use and document possession because they were reasonably related to the defendant's criminal history and the prevention of future criminality.
Issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing probation conditions that lacked a nexus to the current offense of conviction.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude that the probation conditions challenged by Stangl are reasonable based on his prior criminal history, and we accordingly affirm the judgment.”