P. v. Barriga
In this appeal appellant challenges as vague a probation condition that requires him to "[t]otally abstain from the use of alcoholic beverages, not purchase or possess alcoholic beverages, and stay out of places you know alcohol to be the main item of sale." Appellant urges this court to modify the first part of the condition to include a knowledge requirement.
Even though appellant did not object to the condition at issue when it was imposed, the forfeiture rule does not apply when a probation condition is challenged as unconstitutionally vague on its face and the claim can be resolved on appeal as a pure question of law without reference to the sentencing record. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888–889 (Sheena K.).)
For reasons that follow we modify the challenged probation condition, which is designated probation condition "8" in the probation officer's report and the minute order from the sentencing hearing.
The facts underlying appellant's conviction are not relevant to this appeal. We note, however, that pursuant to a negotiated disposition appellant pleaded no contest to one count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. In exchange for his no contest plea appellant was promised felony probation.
Comments on P. v. Barriga