Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 06F08563
ROBIE, J.
A jury found defendant Richard Wayne Waldron guilty of selling methamphetamine. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation. His conditions of probation included serving 210 days in jail and not “associat[ing] with known drug sellers or users, and . . . not [being] in places where those items are traded.”
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in failing to award him conduct credit against his jail term and in imposing a constitutionally-defective probation condition. The trial court has corrected the credit error, making the first issue moot on appeal. As to the second issue, we agree with defendant and modify the probation condition.
As stated, the court imposed the following probation condition: “[Defendant] is not to associate with known drug sellers or users, and he is not to be in places where those items are traded.” This probation condition is unconstitutionally defective, because it leaves defendant vulnerable to criminal punishment for frequenting a place not known to him to be one where illegal drugs are traded. (See People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 628-629; People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 102-103.) Given “the rule that probation conditions that implicate constitutional rights must be narrowly drawn, and the importance of constitutional rights,” the knowledge requirement and the illegality requirement “should not be left to implication.” (Garcia, at p. 102.)
The minute order of sentencing recasts this probation condition as follows: “Defendant shall 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.” We do not analyze the constitutionality of the probation condition as recast because “the oral pronouncement of sentence prevails in cases where it deviates from that recorded in the minutes.” (People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 242.)
DISPOSITION
The condition of probation is modified to state the following: “Defendant is not to associate with persons known to him to be drug sellers or users, and he is not to be in places where he knows drugs are illegally traded.” As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, Acting P.J., DAVIS, J.