Opinion ID: 4021909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Defendant Moran entered a Home Depot store in San Jose, placed items valued at $128 in his backpack, and left the store without paying. Confronted by store security, he admitted the theft and explained that he had hoped to resell the stolen items. He later pleaded no contest to second degree burglary and having served a prior prison term for vehicle theft (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667.5, subd. (b)),1 in exchange for an indicated sentence of probation on conditions including a year 1 All further statutory references are to this code. 1 in jail and, at issue here, the condition that he not “go on the premises, parking lot adjacent or any store of Home Depot in the State of California.” He did not object to these conditions. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that “[a]lthough . . . there is an obvious nexus between appellant’s crime and the probation condition as it relates to the specific Home Depot store from which he took the merchandise, . . . the condition should contain an exception that would allow [him] to be on Home Depot property on legitimate business . . . .” According to the appellate court, because the condition lacked this exception, it was unconstitutionally overbroad. That court also suggested the condition violated defendant’s constitutional right to travel, noting that the “right to travel ‘is simply elementary in a free society. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.’ ” The Court of Appeal struck the challenged probation condition and, as so modified, affirmed the judgment. We granted the People’s petition for review.