People v. Parris CA2/5

Filed 3/6/14 P. v. Parris CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B247678

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA385759) v.

TERRY PARRIS, Jr.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Leslie A. Swain, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Linda C. Johnson, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant Terry Parris, Jr. pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1) (count 4) and was placed on probation on various terms and conditions. The minute order for defendant’s sentencing hearing stated that the trial court dismissed counts 1, 2, and 3 “pursuant to plea negotiation.” On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues. On June 6, 2013, we gave notice to defendant that counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant did not file a responsive brief or letter. After independently reviewing the record, we asked the parties to submit letter briefs addressing whether the probation terms, as reflected in the trial court’s minute order, that defendant “stay away from places where users or sellers [of narcotics, dangerous or restricted drugs] congregate [and to] not associate with drug users or sellers unless attending a drug treatment program” are unconstitutionally vague because they do not include a knowledge requirement, i.e., that defendant stay away from places where he knows illicit drug users or sellers congregate, and that he not associate with persons he knows are illicit drug users or sellers. We further asked the parties whether this court is required to strike the following probation terms from the trial court’s minute order because they were not part of the trial court’s oral grant of probation: “Obey all rules and regulations of the Probation Department”; “Do not associate with drug users or sellers unless attending a drug treatment program”; “carry proof of registration [as a convicted narcotics offender] at all times, display registration to any law enforcement officer upon request”; and pay a $35 penalty assessment pursuant to Government Code section 76000. Finally, we pointed out to the parties that although the trial court did not rule on the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss counts 1, 2, and 3, the trial court’s minute order reflects that the counts were “dismissed pursuant to plea negotiation.” We asked the parties, if