People v. Hazeen CA6

Filed 12/28/21 P. v. Hazeen CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H047550 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. 19AP002563, C1773697) v.

NAHID HAZEEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Nahid Hazeen pleaded no contest to misdemeanor sexual battery. The trial court granted a three-year term of formal probation, the terms of which included 180 days in county jail and various fines and fees. Hazeen contends his term of probation should be terminated under Assembly Bill No. 1950 (Assembly Bill 1950) and that we should vacate certain fines and fees under Assembly Bill No. 1869 (Assembly Bill 1869). He further challenges a term of probation as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. For the reasons below, we conclude the Assembly bills apply retroactively, and we agree one of the terms of probation is impermissibly vague, requiring modifications to the terms of probation. We will reverse the probation order and remand with instructions.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background In October 2017, the prosecution charged Hazeen with two counts: count 1—lewd or lascivious act on a child under fourteen (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a))1; and count 2— sexual battery (§§ 242, 243.4, subd. (e)(1)). In July 2018, Hazeen pleaded no contest to misdemeanor sexual battery (§§ 242, 243.4, subd. (e)(1)). In accord with a plea agreement, the trial court granted a three-year term of formal probation including 180 days in county jail and various fines and fees in May 2019. B. Facts of the Offense According to the probation report, the incident occurred at the Great America Theme Park in August 2017. Police received a report of a male inappropriately touching females in the wave pool. A 26-year-old woman told police Hazeen grabbed her buttocks for about five seconds. She then saw him rub his backside against a young girl. Hazeen told police the contact was accidental. II. DISCUSSION A. Retroactivity of Assembly Bill No. 1950 As set forth above, the trial court granted a three-year term of probation in May 2019. Effective January 1, 2021, Assembly Bill 1950 amended section 1203a, reducing the maximum term of misdemeanor probation to one year. (§ 1203a, subd. (a), as amended by Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 1.) Hazeen contends the change in law applies to him retroactively under In re Estrada (1966) 63 Cal.2d 740, and he asks that we terminate his probation. The Attorney General concedes that Assembly Bill 1950 applies retroactively to Hazeen. The Attorney General argues the proper remedy is a remand for the trial court to determine whether Hazeen has successfully completed probation, and to preserve Hazeen’s ability to pursue expungement. The Attorney General further argues that