California Court of Appeal Jun 18, 2014 No. D063928Unpublished
Filed 6/18/14 P. v. Thomas CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D063928
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD243795)
ROY WILLIAM THOMAS, III,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Albert T. Harutunian III, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Dawn S. Mortazavi, 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 Alastair J.
Agcaoili, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Roy William Thomas, III of making a criminal threat while using
a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced Thomas to a 270-day commitment to the
sheriff followed by three years of formal probation with three alcohol-related probation
conditions. Thomas appeals, contending the court abused its discretion by imposing
probation condition when defendant came home, smelling of alcohol, and abused her
mother]; People v. Beal, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at pp. 86-87 [the court found a nexus
between alcohol use and future criminality because the defendant was convicted of
methamphetamine for sale]; People v. Lindsay (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1644-1645
[the court found a nexus between alcohol use and future criminality because the
defendant was convicted of selling cocaine and had a history of drug and alcohol abuse];
People v. Smith (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1034-1034 [the court found a nexus
between alcohol use and future criminality because the defendant was convicted of
possessing PCP].)
Here, Thomas has no history of alcohol or drug abuse. Neither alcohol nor drugs
were involved in the facts surrounding Thomas's conviction. Unlike Moret, Balestra,
Beal, Lindsay, and Smith, there is no nexus between the alcohol probation conditions and
future criminality. Thomas has never been convicted of an alcohol- or drug-related crime
and, other than the instant offense, he has no criminal history. Despite the Attorney
General's and our dissenting colleague's argument that alcohol probation conditions are
reasonable since Thomas suffers from "impulsive behavior," there is no factual basis here
that alcohol had aggravated any impulsive behavior that would lead to future
criminalities. The alcohol probation conditions do not have a "rational factual basis . . .
5
that defendant may commit [this] particular type of crime in the future." (In re Martinez,
supra, 86 Cal.App.3d at p. 583.)
There must be some factual basis for the trial court's exercise of discretion. There
is none. Because all of the Lent factors are satisfied, the alcohol probation conditions are
invalid.
DISPOSITION
Probation conditions 8b, 8f, and 8h are stricken. As so modified, the order
granting probation is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
I CONCUR:
MCDONALD, J.
6
HALLER, Acting P. J., Dissenting:
Unlike the majority, I am satisfied the trial court did not violate People v. Lent
(1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 when it imposed the alcohol probation conditions at issue here.
Although it is not entirely clear exactly what precipitated appellant's anger, it is
abundantly clear that on the night of the incident appellant's conduct quickly escalated
from verbal accusations directed at the victim to appellant confronting his roommate with
two eight-inch kitchen knives and threatening to kill him and his sister who lived next
door. Following repeated threats, the victim was able to deescalate the situation. The
appellant packed a bag with clothing and medications, told the victim there was no point
living any longer, and left the apartment. The victim later reported appellant would
frequently get mad "at anything"; "just gets mad about things" in general; and on the day
of the incident ingested his medications after stating he had no reason to live.
After reviewing the facts of the case, investigating the defendant's background and
interviewing the appellant, the probation officer opined appellant does not recognize the
seriousness of his behavior and needs to address his impulsive behavior, mental health
issues and lack of anger management skills. The probation officer recommended three
years of formal probation, subject to various terms and conditions, including the alcohol
conditions challenged here. Rather than recommending alcohol conditions "as directed"
by the probation officer, the probation officer suggested the less onerous option of
requiring compliance only "if directed" by the probation officer. The court agreed and
imposed this option.
Taking into account the appellant's anger and impulse control issues and the
probation officer's obligation to monitor a defendant on formal felony probation, the
ability of a probation officer to impose alcohol conditions, if appellant's behavior
warrants it, seems entirely consistent with efforts to rehabilitate a probationer, reform
conduct and prevent future criminality. Accordingly, I find no error and would affirm.
HALLER, Acting P. J.
2
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing alcohol-related probation conditions because there was no nexus between the defendant's alcohol use and his criminal conduct or future criminality.
Issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing alcohol-related probation conditions on a defendant with no history of alcohol abuse and whose crime was not alcohol-related.
Disposition. Affirmed as modified.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Thomas's alcohol probation conditions are not related to the crime he was convicted.”
“There is no nexus between the alcohol probation conditions and future criminality.”
“Because all of the Lent factors are satisfied, the alcohol probation conditions are invalid.”