In re Mejia
Petitioner contends that her trial counsel was incompetent for failing to object to the condition of probation that requires her to submit to drug testing. Petitioner argues that the condition was unlawful here because drugs were not involved in the offense, she does not use drugs, and she has no history of drug abuseaccording to the probation report, petitioner reported no illicit drug use other than experimenting with marijuana several years before the offense. However, the court has broad discretion in imposing conditions of probation (People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 65), and drug testing conditions are lawful because they are reasonably related to future criminality (see In re Kacy S. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 704, 710, citing People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486). Since it is not reasonably probable that an objection to the condition would have been sustained, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel lacks merit. (People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 584.) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Comments on In re Mejia