Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FSB1003367. John N. Martin, Judge.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, James D. Dutton and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P.J.
Defendant Joseph Gilbert Moreno appeals from the trial court’s imposition of a probation condition requiring him to “report to the local police agency gang detail with a copy of your terms and conditions” of probation. Defendant argues this condition parallels the gang unit registration requirement found in Penal Code section 186.30, which can be imposed only under certain circumstances, and which circumstances do not exist here. As discussed below, the challenged condition does not require registration as a gang member under section 186.30. Further, the condition is related to future criminality, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed this condition.
All section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Facts and Procedure
On August 10, 2008, while serving a search warrant at defendant’s house, police found a loaded handgun wrapped in a ski mask, cocaine, a digital scale, several empty baggies, and four Darvocet pills. On defendant’s cell phone police found several messages concerning the sale of cocaine, ecstasy and firearms. Further, defendant had placed outdoor surveillance cameras around his house.
On August 12, 2010, the People charged defendant with possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)), maintaining a place for selling or using a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351).
On August 23, 2010, defendant pled guilty to maintaining a place for selling or using a controlled substance. The probation report prepared for the sentencing hearing recommended that “gang terms” be ordered “to assist the Probation Department in properly supervising the defendant.” The reason given was that defendant had admitted to having created a tagging crew in 2005, and to having been gang carded by law enforcement. At the sentencing hearing held on September 21, 2010, the remaining charges were dismissed and defendant was placed on three years of formal probation and ordered to serve 120 days in jail. Defense counsel objected to the following term of probation: “Report to the local police agency gang detail with a copy of your terms and conditions, and show proof to the probation officer within fourteen (14) days from today’s date or your release from custody.” Counsel objected on the ground that, although defendant lives in a neighborhood in which many individuals are gang members, defendant was not himself a gang member. Counsel reasoned that this term “effectively parallels registration, ” presumably referring to the registration requirements of section 186.30, which can only be imposed under circumstances not present here. The trial court noted counsel’s objection but overruled it. Counsel did not object to the terms prohibiting defendant from displaying gang hand signs or wearing gang paraphernalia. This appeal followed.
Discussion
The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Imposing a Probation Condition Requiring Defendant to Report to the Local Gang Detail
Pursuant to section 1203.1, subdivision (j), a court granting probation may impose “reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer....” Conditions of probation “‘are meant to assure that the probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the community is not harmed by the probationer’s being at large.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 380 (Olguin); see also People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120 (Carbajal).)
Courts have broad discretion to impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety. (Carbajal, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1120.) We review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 1121; Olguin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 379.) However, the trial court’s discretion in setting conditions of probation is not unbounded. (People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 624 (Lopez).) A condition of probation is invalid if it “‘(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality....’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486.)
“‘Probation is an act of clemency which rests within the discretion of the trial court, whose order granting or denying probation will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Superior Court (Du) (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 822, 831.) Regarding gang conditions, it has been noted that association with gang members is the first step to involvement in gang activity, so gang conditions have been found to be “‘reasonably designed to prevent future criminal behavior.’ [Citation.]” (Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 624.) For juveniles, whether the minor was currently connected with a gang has not been critical. (In re Laylah K. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1496, 1502.) Evidence of current gang membership is not a prerequisite to imposition of conditions designed to steer minors from this destructive path. (Ibid.) Probationary proscriptions against gang-related conduct have been found equally proper when imposed upon adults. (Lopez, at p. 625.)
Defendant challenges the probation condition requiring him to report to the local gang detail. He asserts that the condition was ordered pursuant to the authority of section 186.30, requiring registration for persons convicted of gang crimes or enhancements. Because his case did not involve a gang allegation, he asserts that he should not be ordered to report to the gang detail. We disagree.
Probation condition No. 24 simply requires defendant to report to the local police agency gang detail with a copy of his probation conditions. It does not require registration as a gang member. It is a term that allows the local law enforcement agency to be aware of defendant’s probation status and help his probation officer ensure defendant’s compliance with his probation conditions. Consequently, this condition is reasonably related to future criminality, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed this condition.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER, J., KING, J.