Opinion
A165381
12-01-2022
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALONZO VAUGHN HANZY, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Napa County Super. Ct. No. 20CR000599)
SIMONS, J.
In March 2022, Alonzo Vaughn Hanzy (appellant) pled no contest to possession of personal identifying information of 10 or more people (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(3)). In June, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation with certain conditions. Appellant challenges three of those conditions as improper delegations of judicial authority and the People agree the challenged conditions should be remanded.
The underlying facts are not relevant to this appeal.
Appellant requested and obtained a certificate of probable cause. The People concede appellant's challenge is not precluded by his failure to object to the conditions below (People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 901
The challenged conditions require appellant "Enroll in and successfully complete the Community Corrections Service Center program if required by the Probation Officer..." (condition 20); "Immediately enroll in, pay for, and successfully complete an alcohol and drug problem assessment program, if directed by the Probation Officer" (condition 24); and "Enroll in, pay for, and successfully complete an outpatient treatment program or a residential treatment program if required and as chosen by the Probation Officer..." (condition 25).
In Smith, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th 897, this court held a condition requiring the defendant to" 'participate in any treatment/therapy/counseling program, including residential, as directed by the probation officer'" improperly delegated judicial authority to the probation officer, reasoning that, "[g]iven the significant liberty interests at stake, a court-not a probation officer-must make the decision to require a defendant to attend residential treatment." (Id. at pp. 901, 903.) We agree with the parties that, under Smith, condition 25 delegating the decision to require a residential treatment program to the probation officer cannot stand.
Smith issued after the trial court imposed judgment in this case.
We also agree with the parties that the remaining two conditions improperly grant the probation officer unfettered discretion to determine whether appellant must complete a "Community Corrections Service Center program" and/or must obtain an alcohol and drug assessment as a condition of probation. (Smith, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at p. 902 ["While the probation (Smith) ["facial constitutional challenge may be considered for the first time on appeal"]), or by his signed plea agreement indicating the terms included "waive appeal," which was not explored by the trial court or stated orally on the record. officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court's probation conditions, it is the court's duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer."]; People v. O'Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358-1359 [while a "court may leave to the discretion of the probation officer the specification of the many details that invariably are necessary to implement the terms of probation[,] ... the court's order cannot be entirely open-ended. It is for the court to determine the nature of the prohibition placed on a defendant as a condition of probation ..."].)
We will strike the challenged conditions and remand for the trial court to decide whether to mandate the programs and/or assessment. "The court's decision may be informed by the results of any assessment and additional information provided by the parties." (Smith, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at p. 903.)
DISPOSITION
Probation conditions 20, 24, and 25 are stricken from the trial court's judgment, and the matter is remanded for reconsideration of those conditions, consistent with the present decision. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur. JACKSON, P. J., BURNS, J.