People v. Hill CA3

Filed 12/10/14 P. v. Hill CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Siskiyou)

THE PEOPLE, C075607 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. v. MCYKCRF-120001869-002)

KRISTEN MARIE HILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE PEOPLE, C075607

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCYKCRF12-0001869-003) v.

PAUL ZACHARY BLEDSOE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendants Kristen Marie Hill and Paul Zachary Bledsoe entered pleas of no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and failure to

1

appear and admitted on-bail enhancements. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation for both defendants. Defendants appeal. They challenge a condition of probation which grants the probation officer the right to approve where they live and work. They also challenge the stayed portion of a restitution fine. We will modify the probation orders, striking the challenged condition, and remand to the trial court to impose an authorized restitution fine. In all other respects, we will affirm the orders of probation. FACTS After a night of drinking and partying on October 15, 2012, defendants were involved in the beating of the victim. The victim sustained serious injuries. Defendants were released on bail after their arrests and failed to appear at a court hearing. Bench warrants were issued and defendants were located in Michigan. DISCUSSION I Prior to sentencing, the probation officer recommended probation for defendants subject to certain terms and conditions including probation condition number 5 which provides: “That [her/his] place of employment and residence must meet with the approval of the Probation Officer.” The court so ordered at sentencing. Defendants contend that the condition is constitutionally overbroad, violating their rights to travel, association, and employment.1 The People concede that condition number 5 is constitutionally overbroad. Based on People v. Bauer (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 937, 944 (Bauer), People v. Burden (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1279- 1281, and People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358-1359, we agree.