People v. Ekoniak CA3

Filed 12/27/22 P. v. Ekoniak CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094971

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF2021029)

v.

SCOTT BRIAN EKONIAK,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court granted defendant Scott Brian Ekoniak probation after he pled guilty to hit-and-run causing death and driving under the influence. He contends two conditions of his probation are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and that the court erred by failing to identify the statutory bases for his fines, fees, and assessments. Finding merit in his contentions, we will modify the conditions and remand with additional instructions.

1

BACKGROUND Our statement of facts is taken from the preliminary hearing, which served as the factual basis for defendant’s plea. According to an investigating officer, defendant stated he went to the victim’s apartment with a 30-pack of beer in the late morning to watch football with the victim. Defendant, who claimed he could “drink an 18-pack no problem,” had at least nine beers. Around 7:30 p.m., he bought a couple of 24-ounce beers; he remembered drinking one. A little while later, as defendant drove out of the parking lot of the apartment complex, defendant hit the victim with his truck. He stopped briefly, claiming he thought the victim “was going to be okay,” and then drove off. A witness who saw defendant after he got out of the truck to check on the victim stated defendant smelled like alcohol. In exchange for the dismissal of other charges, defendant pled no contest to felony hit-and-run causing death (Veh. Code, § 20001, subds. (a), (b)(2)) and misdemeanor driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). Defendant’s plea included the condition that he would be prohibited from drinking alcohol while on probation and that he would be required to wear an alcohol monitoring device for up to a year of probation. The probation report noted that, from 1994 to 2018, defendant’s prior offenses included five drunk-in-public violations (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)), one of which resulted in a detention pursuant to section 5170 of the Welfare and Institutions Code “for the 72-hour treatment and evaluation of inebriates” (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (g)). The trial court granted two years of formal probation for the felony and five years of informal probation for the misdemeanor. Rejecting defense counsel’s request for a shorter term, the court stated that defendant “killed somebody and he has a long history with alcohol violations of the law, not just problems with alcohol, but alcohol violations, and he is going to be under the supervision of the probation office this entire time so that he has all of the support he can get.”