People v. Stark CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Sep 23, 2014 No. D065746Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a probation condition requiring a defendant to have "no contact" with a known codefendant is not unconstitutionally vague, as it implicitly requires the defendant to have knowledge of and knowingly engage in contact.

Issues

Whether a probation condition prohibiting contact with a codefendant is unconstitutionally vague for failing to define the term "contact."

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The challenged condition in this case required that Stark have "no contact with the codefendant(s)."”

“There is nothing in the ordinary language of such condition that would mislead or confuse persons of common intelligence.”

“We are satisfied the challenged condition is not constitutionally vague and therefore affirm the judgment.”

Filed 9/23/14 P. v. Stark CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D065746

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD251988)

LLOYD HENRY STARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G.

Rogers, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Office of Alissa L. Bjerkhoel and Alissa L. Bjerkhoel, under appointment by

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,

Peter Quon, Jr. and Parag Agrawal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and

Respondent.

A jury convicted Lloyd Henry Stark of selling a controlled substance (Health &

Saf. Code,1 § 11379, subd. (a)) and possession of a controlled substance (§ 11377).

The court suspended the imposition of sentence and granted Stark probation on

various terms and conditions.

Stark appeals challenging only one of the probation conditions. He contends, for

the first time on appeal, that the condition which requires him to have no contact with his

People v. Stark CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D065746

LLOYD HENRY STARK,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

STATEMENT OF FACTS

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

HUFFMAN, J.

NARES, J.

AI Brief