People v. Garcia CA4/3

Filed 8/19/22 P. v. Garcia CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059716

v. (Super. Ct. No. 19NF3199)

ANDRES GUSTAVO GARCIA, OPI NION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John R. Zitny, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Tanya Dellaca and California Appellate Project, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Andres Gustavo Garcia appeals the judgment following his conviction on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol and providing false information to a police officer. He does not argue the convictions themselves should be overturned; instead, he challenges two of the conditions of mandatory supervision imposed by the court—one requiring that he “use no unauthorized drugs, narcotics, or controlled substances” and the other requiring that he “cooperate with your mandatory supervision officer in any plan for psychological, psychiatric, alcohol, and/or drug treatment.” Garcia contends the first condition is unconstitutionally vague and suggests it could be violated through the use of over-the-counter drugs, while the second condition is overly broad and improperly delegates judicial authority to the mandatory supervision officer. We agree on both counts. While the Attorney General contends the first condition refers only to prescription medications, he fails to account for the fact it lists “drugs” separately from “controlled substances.” The Attorney General claims the second condition is superfluous because the trial court also ordered Garcia to participate in a specific substance abuse program. We are not persuaded. The use of the phrase “any plan” indicates a wider scope than the single plan ordered by the court. Finally, Garcia challenges the trial court’s imposition of booking fees on the ground that new legislation, which became effective on July 1, 2021, repealed the court’s authority to collect them. The Attorney General agrees the fees should be vacated and so do we. We consequently reverse that portion of the judgment related to those challenged supervision conditions and booking fees; we remand the case to the trial court with directions to vacate the booking fees and either strike or revise the supervision conditions.