People v. Jimenez CA6

Filed 3/25/15 P. v. Jimenez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H040459 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS132048A)

v.

JULIO JIMENEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Julio Jimenez appeals a judgment following his plea of no contest to numerous domestic violence charges. On appeal defendant asserts the court erred in ordering a probation condition requiring him to be employed or in school full-time, because the condition is vague. In addition, defendant argues the court erred in awarding him zero presentence custody credits for his felony case. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 In October 2013, a complaint was filed against defendant in case No. SS132048A. The complaint alleged the following crimes: Corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant (Penal Code § 273.5, subd. (a)2; count 1); violation of a criminal protective order (§ 166,

1 The underlying facts are omitted because they are not relevant to the issues on appeal. 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

subd. (c)(1); count 2); and child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b); count 3). As to count 1, the complaint further alleged, that defendant had a prior conviction under section 245, subdivision (a)(1), within the preceding seven years. (§ 273.5, subd. (e).) At the time of the alleged offenses referenced above, defendant was on probation in two misdemeanor cases: Monterey County Superior Court case Nos. MS301310A and MS309897A. On October 23, 2013, defendant pled no contest to count 1 and admitted the section 273.5, subdivision (e)(1), allegation in exchange for felony probation. Based on that plea, the court found defendant to be in violation of probation in the two misdemeanor cases. On December 6, 2013, in the felony case, No. SS132048A, the court suspended imposition of sentence, imposed a three-year term of probation on condition that defendant serve 150 days in jail, and awarded zero presentence credit. Counts 2 and 3 were dismissed. In misdemeanor case No. MS301310A, the court reinstated probation and ordered that defendant serve 217 days in county jail with 217 days of presentence credits. In misdemeanor case No. MS309897A, the court reinstated probation and ordered that defendant serve 30 days in county jail with 21 days of presentence credits. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Defendant asserts on appeal that the probation condition that he maintain employment or enroll in school is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. He also argues the court erred in awarding him zero presentence credits in his felony case. Employment Probation Condition As a condition of probation, the court ordered that defendant “[m]aintain gainful employment or become enrolled as an active full-time student.” Defendant argues this