People v. Gomez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Mar 21, 2022 No. D078770Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the probation condition prohibiting the defendant from possessing or using marijuana was invalid under the Lent test because it was not related to the crime, involved lawful conduct, and lacked a nexus to future criminality.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a probation condition prohibiting the possession or use of marijuana when such conduct was unrelated to the offense or the defendant's history.

Disposition. Affirmed as modified with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree with the parties that the condition is not consistent with the decision in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent).”

“The matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to strike the condition prohibiting Gomez from lawfully possessing or using marijuana.”

Filed 3/21/22 P. v. Gomez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D078770

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN413225)

CHASE RYAN GOMEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael D. Washington, Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions. Matthew R. Garcia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In February 2021, Chase Ryan Gomez pleaded guilty to one count of

assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The court accepted the plea agreement and placed Gomez on probation for two years, subject to various terms and conditions. At the sentencing hearing, Gomez objected to several proposed conditions. Among those objected to were a condition forbidding use of alcohol and one forbidding the use or possession of marijuana. Neither substance played any part in the events involved in the offense. The court struck the alcohol condition but declined to strike the marijuana condition. The only discernable difference apparent in the record is the statement of the probation officer that Probation did not think it appropriate for people on probation to possess marijuana. Gomez appeals, challenging only the decision to impose the marijuana condition of probation. The Attorney General agrees that the court erred in imposing the marijuana condition on the record before us. We agree with the parties that the condition is not consistent with the decision in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). We will remand the case to the superior court with

People v. Gomez CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D078770

CHASE RYAN GOMEZ,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AARON, J.

AI Brief