P. v. Barrajas
As part of a plea agreement, defendant Esequiel Barrajas pleaded no contest to one felony count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). He also admitted enhancement allegations that he had served one prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b))[1] and had one prior conviction that qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes Law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court dismissed charges that defendant committed one count of misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a), (b)). The court subsequently granted defendant's motion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and struck the prior strike conviction. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years, subject to various terms and conditions, including six months in county jail and several gang-related conditions.
On appeal, defendant challenges two of the gang conditions of his probation, which (1) preclude him from possessing, using, or displaying gang insignia or paraphernalia and (2) direct him not to obtain any new gang tattoos. He contends that these conditions are overbroad and violate his First Amendment right of free expression. We conclude that the tattoo condition is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks a knowledge requirement. We will therefore modify the tattoo condition and affirm the judgment as modified.
Comments on P. v. Barrajas