P. v. Rudolph
Filed 10/5/10 P. v. Rudolph CA1/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARSHALL
TIMOTHY RUDOLPH
Defendant and Appellant.
A127267
(Solano
County
Super. Ct.
No. FCR268038)
I.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant
Marshall Timothy Rudolph contends that the trial
court violated his federal constitutional right to due process when it
imposed vague and overbroad probation conditions, including prohibiting him
from being in the presence of minors and ordering him to submit to polygraph
examinations. We conclude that the
probation condition regarding appellant being in the presence of minors is
overly broad and must be narrowed in order to avoid constitutional infirmity. Otherwise, we find no merit in appellant's
arguments. Accordingly, we direct the
trial court to correct the minute order
and modify the challenged probation conditions, and affirm the judgment (order
granting probation) as modified.
II.
FACTS AND
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On the evening of
Halloween 2008, victim S.G., age 15, went trick-or-treating with her sister and
her sister's friend. They later met up
with appellant, age 18. When S.G.'s sister
and her sister's friend left, S.G. and appellant continued
trick-or-treating. Appellant then took
S.G. up a steep street called â€
| Description | Appellant Marshall Timothy Rudolph contends that the trial court violated his federal constitutional right to due process when it imposed vague and overbroad probation conditions, including prohibiting him from being in the presence of minors and ordering him to submit to polygraph examinations. Court conclude that the probation condition regarding appellant being in the presence of minors is overly broad and must be narrowed in order to avoid constitutional infirmity. Otherwise, Court find no merit in appellant's arguments. Accordingly, we direct the trial court to correct the minute order and modify the challenged probation conditions, and affirm the judgment (order granting probation) as modified. |
| Rating |
