People v. Holzmann

Filed 1/5/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H044507 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. B1688435)

v.

JASON ALAN HOLZMANN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jason Alan Holzmann was convicted of stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)) and granted probation. He contends that one of the conditions of his probation––an order that he stay away from the Apple Computer campus in Cupertino–– is unconstitutionally vague because it does not specify a distance. As we will explain, a probation condition ordering someone to stay away from a particular location need only express the obligation it imposes in ordinary and understandable terms. The Constitution does not require more. We will affirm the probation order. I. BACKGROUND Defendant pleaded no contest to stalking his ex-wife in violation of Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (a). As part of a negotiated disposition, the District Attorney agreed to dismiss several misdemeanor charges involving a trespass on the Apple campus in Cupertino in exchange for defendant’s no contest plea to the stalking charge. Defendant was granted probation for a period of five years. One of the conditions of

probation imposed by the trial court is that defendant “stay away from the Apple campus.”1 II. DISCUSSION Defendant contends that the probation condition ordering him to “stay away” from the Apple campus is too vague to provide adequate notice of what he is required to do and therefore violates the United States Constitution. The Attorney General concedes the point based on People v. Barajas (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 748, 754, a decision from a different panel of this court. The Attorney General interprets Barajas as holding that a stay away order without a distance is unconstitutionally vague and must be modified to indicate how close to a specified location a defendant may come (e.g., “defendant must not come within 50 yards of the Apple campus”). We do not accept the concession because Barajas does not compel the conclusion that a stay away order must specify a distance to be constitutional. The addition of an express distance in Barajas was merely one approach to addressing the concern in that case, namely that the phrase “adjacent to”