People v. Case CA6

Filed 6/23/23 P. v. Case CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H050415 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. F1900735)

v.

SHAUN MICHAEL CASE,

Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT1 Shaun Michael Case pled no contest to grand theft, in violation of Penal Code section 487.2 The parties stipulated to a no-jail sentence. The trial court placed Case on 16 months of mandatory supervision. As a condition of supervision, the court ordered Case to “enter and complete a substance abuse treatment program as directed by Probation” (Condition No. 10). On appeal, Case contends that because Condition No. 10 can be interpreted to give probation discretion to order Case into residential treatment, the condition is an improper delegation of judicial authority. Case also argues that Condition No. 10 is unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and violates the three-part test set forth in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). Concluding that Condition No. 10 is neither an improper delegation of judicial authority nor overbroad or unconstitutionally vague,

1 Before Greenwood, P. J., Grover, J. and Lie, J. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

and that the condition is reasonably related to preventing Case’s future criminality, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint charging Case with one count of grand theft, in violation of section 487. The complaint further alleged that Case sustained two prior convictions for which he served a term of imprisonment, pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). Both prior convictions were for possession for sale of a controlled substance. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Case pled no contest to grand theft for a term of 16 months on mandatory supervision, and in exchange, the prosecutor dismissed the prior conviction allegations and agreed to not seek additional custody time. The probation report prepared in anticipation of Case’s sentencing recommended substance abuse conditions, including the condition that Case “enter and complete a substance abuse treatment program as directed by his probation officer” (Condition No. 10). The probation department recommended substance abuse conditions because “[a] review of the defendant’s criminal history revealed several drug related offenses including the use of a controlled substance, possession of narcotic for sale, under the influence of a controlled substance, and possession of paraphernalia with the intent to use. In an effort to address any substance abuse issues the defendant may be facing it is recommended the full range of substance abuse conditions be included with the grant of Mandatory Supervision.” The trial court sentenced Case to one day and awarded him one day credit for time served. The court imposed the recommended substance abuse conditions, including: (1) that Case submit to chemical testing as directed by probation (Condition No. 8); (2) that Case not knowingly possess or use illegal drugs, narcotics, or controlled substances, or go to places where he knows drugs, narcotics or controlled substances are illegally used or sold (Condition No. 9); and (3) that Case “enter and complete a substance abuse 2