People v. Solomon CA3

Filed 4/4/14 P. v. Solomon CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C071063

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12F00088)

JEREMY LERON SOLOMON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jeremy Leron Solomon pled no contest to one count of possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and was granted formal probation for a period of five years. On appeal, defendant challenges the following italicized language contained in the minute order and order of probation: “It is the further Order of the Court that . . . you shall comply in all respects with any Special Conditions of Probation contained in your Order of Probation or which may subsequently be ordered by the Court or the Probation Officer.” (Italics added.) He argues the italicized language violates the separation of powers doctrine because it “impermissibly empowers the probation officer to exercise the judicial function of fashioning and imposing conditions of probation.”

1

The Attorney General agrees the written probation order “should be modified to eliminate the probation officer’s apparent authority to impose additional specific probation conditions.” The Attorney General also notes the challenged order was not orally pronounced by the trial court. We conclude the trial court did not order defendant to comply with future special probation conditions that may be imposed by the probation officer. Inclusion of such an order in the written probation order was error. We therefore affirm the judgment, but direct the clerk of the superior court to correct this and other errors in the minute order and order of probation. BACKGROUND We dispense with a recitation of the facts surrounding defendant’s crime as they are not relevant to the issue raised on appeal. Following defendant’s plea of no contest, in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement, the trial court granted defendant formal probation for a period of five years. As a condition of probation, defendant was ordered to serve 180 days in the county jail. The trial court also imposed “all other conditions as set forth in the probation officer’s report,” waived main jail booking and classification fees based on defendant’s inability to pay, and suspended execution of various other fines and fees, stating: “So, it’s only if [defendant] were to not successfully complete [probation] that those come back into play, all right.”1 The trial court then orally imposed the following orders: “Defendant is ordered to provide a DNA sample and fingerprints pursuant to Penal Code Section