People v. Arevalo

California Court of Appeal Jan 17, 2018 No. G054483Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a probation condition requiring a defendant to maintain a residence approved by a probation officer is constitutionally valid when it is reasonably necessary for rehabilitation and public safety.

Issues

Whether a probation condition requiring probation officer approval of a defendant's residence is unconstitutionally overbroad.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its Pitchess motion ruling.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude the approval condition is constitutionally valid.”

“The approval condition allows the probation officer to supervise Arevalo’s residence, because the nature of her crime suggests a need for oversight.”

“Our independent review finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining there was discoverable information with respect to only one incident.”

Filed 1/17/18

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G054483

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14NF1456)

MARIA INES PINEDA AREVALO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert Alan Knox, Judge. Affirmed. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Supervising Attorney General, Kristine Gutierrez and Genevieve Herbert, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Maria Arevalo of possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The trial court suspended execution of sentence and granted three years formal probation on several conditions. On appeal, Arevalo contends the probation condition requiring her to maintain a residence approved by her probation officer is unconstitutionally overbroad and violates her right to travel and freedom of association. She also requests that this court independently review the in camera hearing of her Pitchess motion. We find her first contention lacks merit, and the Attorney General agrees this court should review the confidential records. We have done so, and we affirm the judgment. FACTS In 2014, Orange County Sheriff’s Department Investigator Ashra Abdelmuti conducted a “controlled buy” between a confidential informant (CI) and Arevalo. After the CI purchased methamphetamine from Arevalo, deputies obtained a search warrant for Arevalo, her vehicle, and her apartment. Abdelmuti spoke to Arevalo at her mother’s house in Anaheim. After learning the deputies intended to search her apartment, Arevalo gave them the keys. Inside Arevalo’s apartment, deputies found 5.6 ounces of methamphetamine, two large digital scales, a box of empty plastic baggies, a plastic sifter, and $1,116 in cash. The methamphetamine had a street value between $5,314 and $7,086. Abdelmuti opined the items seized indicated the methamphetamine was possessed for sale. Arevalo testified in her defense. She stated she was afraid of her ex- boyfriend Daniel Jose Leon. Leon possessed two guns, and Arevalo once saw him hit a friend in the head with a gun. Arevalo ended her relationship with Leon in the middle of 2013, but during their relationship, she had borrowed $1,500 from him and had not repaid the loan. In January 2014, Arevalo testified she was employed and dating someone new. Arevalo testified Leon was jealous about her new relationship and angry that she had not repaid

People v. Arevalo

AI Brief

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

MARIA INES PINEDA AREVALO, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

O’LEARY, P. J.

IKOLA, J.

THOMPSON, J.

AI Brief