People v. Esquivel CA6

Filed 6/24/14 P. v. Esquivel CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039949 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1239692)

v.

ANTONIO ESQUIVEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Antonio Esquivel pleaded no contest to a count of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and was placed on probation. After defendant admitted a probation violation, the trial court reinstated probation with additional terms and conditions. On appeal, defendant challenges one of the conditions that limits his attendance at any court proceeding involving a member of a criminal street gang. He contends that the condition is unconstitutionally overbroad. As we will explain, we will modify the challenged condition and affirm the order as so modified. BACKGROUND1 On August 27, 2012, the district attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with one count of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). On October 18, 2012,

1 The underlying facts are neither relevant nor part of the record on appeal.

defendant pleaded no contest to the charge. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years with various terms and conditions, including a 60-day jail term. On May 16, 2013, defendant admitted a probation violation. He also pleaded guilty to exhibiting an imitation firearm (Pen. Code, § 417.4). The trial court reinstated a three-year probation and imposed all previously imposed terms and conditions. The court also imposed various new conditions, including a one-year jail term and several gang conditions. Relevant to this appeal, one of the probation conditions provided that: “Defendant shall not be present at any court proceeding that he knows or the probation officer informs him that a member of a criminal street gang is present or that the proceeding concerns a member of the criminal street gang unless he is a party, he is the defendant in a criminal action, or he is subpoenaed as a witness, or has prior permission from the probation officer.” Defendant generally objected to the “gang conditions” the trial court imposed. The court overruled the objection stating that it was basing the gang conditions on the original grant of probation. “In that case[,] all suspects claimed to be associated with Sure[ñ]o gangs at that time. The case involved an auto theft. And although the condition was not placed at that time, it certainly was an appropriate condition. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . The other two cases involve drugs and weapons before this Court, which are also often indicators of continued gang activity. And so for the totality of the circumstances and the safety of the community, the Court is going to impose those conditions . . . .” DISCUSSION Defendant contends that the probation condition limiting his attendance at any court proceeding involving a criminal street gang member is overbroad because it “impermissibly interferes with his constitutional right of access to courts.” Defendant