P. v. Frausto
A jury convicted Juan Frausto of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a).)[1] The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Frausto on probation for three years with terms and conditions, including that he could not knowingly "be within two blocks of any proscribed area (an area of gang or criminal activity)." On appeal, Frausto contends the court erred by imposing a vague and overbroad probation condition. Frausto also contends the statutory construction of section 4019 and principles of equal protection demand he be given additional presentence custody credits. We conclude the imposed probation condition should be modified to avoid unconstitutional vagueness and overbreadth. We also conclude that under the rules of statutory construction the enhanced conduct credit provision of section 4019 applies only to defendants who committed their crimes on or after October 1, 2011, and section 4019 does not violate principles of equal protection. (U.S. Const. 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a).)
Comments on P. v. Frausto