Opinion
B162741.
7-15-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADI JAFFE, Defendant and Appellant.
Janice Wellborn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Adi Jaffe pleaded guilty to various drug counts. As a condition of probation, the trial court ordered defendant to "stay away from places where users, buyers and/or sellers congregate." Defendant challenges this probation condition on the grounds it is overbroad and void for vagueness. Because defendant waived the objections, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
In a nine count information, defendant was charged as follows: (1) sale/transportation/offer to sell a controlled substance, cocaine (Pen. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)); (2) possession for sale of a controlled substance, cocaine ( § 11351); (3) manufacturing a controlled substance other than PCP, methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (§ 11379.6, subd. (a)); (4) manufacturing a controlled substance, methamphetamine ( § 11379.6, subd. (a)); (5) possession for sale of a controlled substance, methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (§ 11378); (6) possession for sale of a controlled substance, methamphetamine ( § 11378); (7) possession for sale of a controlled substance, psilocyn ( § 11378); (8) possession of a controlled substance, cocaine ( § 11350, subd. (a)); and (9) possession of marijuana for sale ( § 11359).
Defendant pleaded guilty to all counts. The trial court sentenced defendant on all counts, but suspended execution of sentence and placed defendant on probation for 60 months on various terms and conditions. The conditions included the following: "Do not use or possess any narcotics, dangerous or restricted drugs or associated paraphernalia, except with a valid prescription and stay away from places where users or sellers congregate. Do not associate with drug users or sellers unless attending a drug treatment program." Defendant did not object to any of the probation conditions.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends on appeal that the probation condition is unconstitutional because it is overbroad and vague. The People assert that the issue has been waived because defendant did not object to the probation condition in the trial court. We agree with the People.
A defendant cannot argue for the first time on appeal that a condition of probation is unreasonable. (People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 237, 851 P.2d 802.) This court has expressly held, under Welch and a line of cases holding that constitutional objections can be waived (see, e.g., People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250, 940 P.2d 710), that constitutional objections to conditions of probation in a juvenile proceeding based on overbreadth or vagueness are waived unless first made to the trial court. (In re Josue S. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 168, 170-171; contra, In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 815 .) Citing Welch and In re Josue, another court held that an adult criminal defendant who contended that a condition of probation was unconstitutionally vague waived the objection because he failed to assert it in the trial court. (People v. Gardineer (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 148, 151.)
We therefore hold, in accord with our decision in In re Josue S., supra, 72 Cal.App.4th 168, and People v. Gardineer, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th 148, that defendant waived his constitutional objections based on his failure to raise them in the trial court.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: TURNER, P.J., and ARMSTRONG, J. --------------- Notes: All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.