People v. Hernandez CA3

Filed 1/9/23 P. v. Hernandez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096216

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR000736)

v.

ALBERT M. HERNANDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Albert M. Hernandez pled guilty to inflicting corporal injury on a spouse. Defendant challenges the probation condition requiring him to “obey all rules, regulations and directives set out by the probation officer to govern the conduct of the defendant” as an improper delegation of judicial authority and unconstitutionally vague. We shall modify the probation condition and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND When sheriff deputies discovered defendant’s wife at a gas station near her house, she told them she fled her home to escape defendant, who had been drinking and accused her of infidelity. During the physical confrontation following defendant’s accusations,

1

defendant grabbed the victim by her neck, punched her in the mouth, and hurt her hand. The victim presented injuries consistent with her statements. Defendant was charged with inflicting corporal injury on a spouse. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) Defendant pled guilty in exchange for a promise the trial court would grant him probation for three years. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court granted defendant probation for three years on various conditions, including that he obey all laws, attend a batterer’s treatment program, refrain from using or possessing alcohol, any unlawful substance or controlled drug, submit to drug and/or alcohol detection tests, and seek and maintain employment. At sentencing, defendant objected to the further condition requiring him to “obey all rules, regulations and directives set out by the probation officer to govern [his] conduct.” He argued this condition was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague because it left discretion to the probation department to impose any regulation it saw fit. The trial court overruled defendant’s objection stating: “[T]he Court believes that the request to abide by the rules of probation at this point is not inappropriate. In other words, the defendant is agreeing to probation, the rehabilitative terms. And as far as rules, there are going to be some along the way, what time to show up, all kinds of things. They won’t necessarily be written down. And, for that reason, I don’t find it is inappropriate and [do] find it is just a standard term of probation to follow Probation’s rules.” Defendant timely appealed. DISCUSSION Defendant argues the probation condition that he “obey all rules, regulations and directives set out by the probation officer to govern [his] conduct” is an improper delegation of judicial authority to the probation officer and is unconstitutionally vague. We agree the condition is vague and will modify it. In his opening brief, defendant also