In People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729 (Connors), on which defendant relies, the defendant's probation conditions included a condition that read, in part," '[Y]ou're not to possess any sexually explicit materials for the purposes of arousing prurient interest based upon the evidence presented here.'" (Id. at p. 734.
"A court abuses its discretion under the Lent standard only 'when its determination is arbitrary or capricious or" 'exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.'"' [Citation.]" (People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729, 737.) In Connors, defendant was convicted of sexual battery and later pleaded guilty to a sex offender registration violation.
(Id. at p. 1353.) In People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729 (Connors), the defendant was convicted of sexual battery, placed on probation, and ordered to register as a sex offender. He had several probation violations.
To the extent defendant's challenge is a purely facial constitutional challenge to this probation condition, we will not treat it as forfeited. (Compare People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729, 734-737 (Connors) [defendant could not challenge reasonableness of probation condition "as applied" on appeal from finding that he violated condition].) --------
After hearing defense counsel's argument, the trial court stated: "The Court has reviewed your motion, as well as some subsequent case law. And the Court is persuaded by the case of [People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729], which specifically addresses the type of condition that we are discussing here. The probation condition was considered to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
Here, however, the probation condition contains a reference to sections 311.11 and 311.1, which collectively define "pornographic." But it does not contain a knowledge requirement (People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729, 738 [upholding modified condition prohibiting possession of sexually explicit materials the" 'probation officer identifies and informs you are sexually explicit' "]) or the" 'primary purpose of causing sexual arousal'" (In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 667 (David C.) [upholding probation condition prohibiting possession of materials that have" 'primary purpose of causing sexual arousal' "]).
Generally, any discrepancy between the court's oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing and the clerk's minute order is resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement. (E.g., People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855; People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2; People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729, 734, fn. 3; People v. Gabriel (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1073.) We therefore modify the written marijuana use condition to make it conform to the condition orally imposed by the court by deleting "at all" and "| Rec | Prescription" from the minute order, so that it reads, "No marijuana use even with Medical Card."
Because nearly every unpreserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct implicates this duty, Ellis has not identified a persuasive reason for us to exercise our discretion to review his claim of error. (See People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729, 737 ["' "[D]iscretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal issue. [Citations.]"
Nothing in McKenzie suggests an abrogation of the rule that the failure to file a timely appeal from a court's order granting probation normally bars a challenge to conditions imposed as part of that order in an appeal from a later order revoking probation. (People v. Dagostino (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 974, 996-998; People v. Dixon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 146, 150-151; see also People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729, 734-736 [declining to follow People v. Hackler (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1057, which had considered validity of probation condition imposed at original sentencing hearing in a subsequent probation revocation hearing, noting that subsequent developments in the law barred such challenges].) III.
" (People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855.) Thus, in People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729, there was a difference between the court's oral statement and the clerk's minutes as to the scope of a probation condition. (Id. at p. 734, fn. 3.)