P. v. Salinas CA6

Filed 4/16/13 P. v. Salinas CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H038428 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS111919)

v.

CARLOS JOSE SALINAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Carlos Jose Salinas pleaded guilty to evading an officer, driving with a suspended license, and drinking an alcoholic beverage while driving. The trial court placed him on formal probation for three years with conditions. The probation officer thereafter filed a petition to modify the conditions of probation to include abstaining from the use or possession of alcoholic beverages. The trial court granted the request. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by modifying his probation conditions without evidence of a change in circumstances. We disagree. Defendant alternatively contends that the first and second modified conditions are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because they do not contain a “knowledge” requirement. The People concede this issue, and we agree that the concession is appropriate. We therefore modify and affirm the probation order. BACKGROUND The trial court placed defendant on probation on August 26, 2010. On October 17, 2011, the case was transferred from Santa Cruz County to Monterey County. On March

23, 2012, the Monterey County Probation Department (MCPD) filed a petition to modify the terms of defendant‟s probation conditions after discovering that, at the time defendant was placed on probation, the trial court had not included any alcohol, drug, or search conditions. It was standard practice of the MCPD to recommend such conditions when the underlying crime was alcohol related. At the hearing on the modification motion, defense counsel objected to the modification on the basis that defendant had been on probation for one year and eight months without any probation violations, had no new offenses, and was working full time. The probation officer opined that the crime was alcohol related and that “I can‟t predict what his behavior is going to be. And we need to have the additional conditions so we can properly supervise him.” The trial court found the following: “I do find that the requested conditions are related to the original charges in this case 2800.2. [¶] The defendant had alcohol with him at the time. He had consumed alcohol at the time of the offense. It may have reduced his inhibitions such that it caused him to act the way in which he did. If he had not consumed alcohol at the time or had an open container he may not have been present on these charges. [¶] Motion to add additional conditions is granted.” The following conditions were added to defendant‟s probation: “You‟re to abstain from the use [of] alcoholic beverages. You‟re not to purchase or possess alcoholic beverages. Stay out of places you know alcohol to be the main item of sale. [¶] You‟re not to use or possess alcohol, narcotics, intoxicants, drugs or other controlled substances without the prescription of a physician. [¶] You‟re not to traffic in or associate with persons known to you to use or traffic in narcotics or other controlled substances. [¶] You‟re to submit to alcohol or narcotic field sobriety tests when requested by any probation or peace officer. [¶] You‟re to permit the search of your person, your car,