People v. Baker CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Apr 30, 2014 No. D063816Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the challenge to attorney fee assessments was not ripe for review and that the probation condition requiring the defendant to take psychotropic medications was invalid for being vague, overbroad, and lacking a nexus to the crime.

Issues

Whether the trial court violated the defendant's due process rights regarding the assessment of attorney fees.
Whether the probation condition requiring the defendant to take psychotropic medications is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

Disposition. Affirmed as modified.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Baker's contention is not ripe.”

“We agree the condition is invalid because, inter alia, it does not require that Baker be aware of the prescription or order, does not define "psychotropic medications," and is not reasonably related to Baker's crime or future criminality.”

Filed 4/30/14 P. v. Baker CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D063816

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD244547)

CLARENCE T. BAKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A.

Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 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 Stacy

Tyler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In November 2012, police officers found Clarence T. Baker in possession of

Percocet without a prescription. Baker entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing

oxycodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The court imposed a stipulated

sentence of three years' probation. Baker appeals, raising two contentions: First, the

court violated his due process rights by fixing the amount of reimbursable attorney fees at

People v. Baker CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D063816

CLARENCE T. BAKER,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ATTORNEY FEES

PROBATION CONDITION

DISPOSITION

NARES, J.

HALLER, J.

AI Brief