P. v. Johnson CA6

Filed 4/12/13 P. v. Johnson CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H037677 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1117932)

v.

JUSTIN DAVID JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Justin David Johnson pleaded no contest to vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a) & (b)) and resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. Defendant contends: (1) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the reasonableness of the medication probation condition, and (2) the trial court violated his due process rights by imposing a probation condition that was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We agree that the probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad and limit its application to medication prescribed for treatment of any diagnosed mental disorder. As modified, the order is affirmed.

I. Statement of Facts The facts of the underlying offenses are not included in either the reporter‟s transcripts or the probation report. However, comments made at the sentencing hearing indicate that defendant vandalized a police vehicle during “an Occupy protest.” According to the trial court, “[h]e began yelling and viciously started grinding his teeth against the hood of the patrol vehicle by whipping his face repeatedly left and right, purposely trying to damage the patrol vehicle.”

II. Discussion Defendant contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the medication probation condition on the ground that it was not reasonably related to the offense. The probation report stated in relevant part: “Based on the defendant‟s criminal history, depicting numerous arrests for public intoxication and violent related behavior, including his behavior in today‟s matter, this officer recommends full substance abuse orders including search, seizure, testing, and counseling as well as anger management counseling. Mental Health conditions are also recommended based on the Department 64 supervision recommendation.” The probation report further noted that defendant was scheduled to appear in approximately two weeks in the mental health treatment court. Based on the probation officer‟s recommendation, the trial court imposed a probation condition that required defendant to “take medication prescribed for any diagnosed condition as directed by the mental health doctors.” Defendant did not object to this condition at the sentencing hearing. “A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it „(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to