Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 08F09425
Sims, J.
Defendant Kao Saelee entered a negotiated plea of no contest to recklessly evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a drug and inflicting bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years’ probation on various terms and conditions.
Defendant contends, and the People concede, errors in one of the conditions of probation. We accept the concession and shall direct the probation order to be amended.
DISCUSSION
The conditions of defendant’s probation require, among other things, that defendant not “associate with known or reputed users of marijuana, dangerous drugs or narcotics[,] nor be in places where narcotics and/or dangerous drugs are present.” Defendant contends and the People concede that this condition violates his constitutional rights because it imposed a vague and overbroad condition of probation. He asks that the condition be modified to include a knowledge qualifier.
We accept the People’s concession that the condition should be modified. In In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875 (Sheena K.), the California Supreme Court held that a probationary condition prohibiting the probationer from associating with anyone who is a member of a specified class of persons, without a requirement that the probationer know the person is a member of the class, is unconstitutionally vague (Sheena K., supra, at pp. 889-892); that because such a condition presents a pure question of law, a probationer’s failure to object to its imposition does not forfeit the issue for appeal (id. at pp. 888-889); and that an acceptable remedy when such a condition is challenged on appeal is for the appellate court to insert the knowledge requirement (id. at p. 892).
The challenged probation condition imposed on defendant here relates also to the places in which defendant may not be. We find that this part of the condition is similar for constitutional purposes to the condition in Sheena K., and we shall insert the knowledge requirement to it as well.
DISPOSITION
Defendant’s conviction is affirmed. The probation condition that prohibits defendant from associating with users of marijuana, dangerous drugs or narcotics and/or being in places in which such drugs are present is modified to state: “Defendant shall not associate with people he knows to be reputed users of marijuana, dangerous drugs or narcotics, nor be in places where he knows narcotics and/or dangerous drugs are or will be present.” As so modified, the order of probation is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend its records to reflect this modification and to forward the appropriate documents to defendant and to the probation department.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J., HULL, J.