Court Opinion

ID: 9396453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 17:04:28.694711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.223587
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/22/23 P. v. Newell CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096715

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 20FE09383)

           v.

 KRISTINA WILHEMINA NEWELL,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

          Defendant Kristina Wilhemina Newell was granted probation after a jury found
her guilty of assault. On appeal, she challenges a probation condition that she “not
associate with persons he or she knows to be illegal users or sellers of marijuana,
dangerous drugs, or narcotics, nor be in places where he or she knows illegal narcotics
and/or dangerous drugs are present.” We will modify the condition and otherwise
affirm.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       In an altercation that began when debris fell over a property line, defendant joined
her accomplices in punching and kicking one of the employees of a landscaping company
working on an adjacent property. The landscaper sustained significant injuries.
       Defendant was found guilty by the jury of assault by force likely to produce great
bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).)
       A probation report was prepared for sentencing. It recommended probation along
with numerous proposed probation conditions, including that: “Defendant not associate
with persons he or she knows to be illegal users or sellers of marijuana, dangerous drugs,
or narcotics, nor be in places where he or she knows illegal narcotics and/or dangerous
drugs are present.”
       At sentencing, the trial court granted probation and ordered defendant to serve 180
days in jail. Defense counsel answered yes when the court commented that it was
including probation conditions that “have to do with being around drugs, drug users, and
so forth,” because “in looking at the probation report, she was having issues with
substance abuse problems before even though she said she was cleaning her act up.”
Defendant then answered in the affirmative when the court asked her if she accepted the
terms and conditions of probation.
                                       DISCUSSION
       On appeal, defendant challenges as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad the
condition requiring that she “not associate with persons he or she knows to be illegal
users or sellers of marijuana, dangerous drugs, or narcotics, nor be in places where he or
she knows illegal narcotics and/or dangerous drugs are present.” She argues “the
condition is not sufficiently precise, as it is impossible for appellant to determine exactly
what drugs are covered by the condition, where the term ‘dangerous drugs’ is open to
interpretation.” She argues “[i]t is also unclear whether the term includes lawful over the
counter drugs that are dangerous if used in sufficient quantities or lawfully prescribed

                                              2
prescription drugs kept in a place where appellant might be.” The People agree, as do
we.
       The People correctly concede that defendant’s challenge to the probation condition
is not forfeited for failure to object below. Because defendant raises a facial challenge to
the condition’s constitutionality, the challenge is preserved. (See In re Sheena K. (2007)
40 Cal.4th 875, 885 [reaching a facial challenge that a condition is unconstitutionally
vague despite failure to object below]; People v. Nice (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 928, 945
[challenge to probation condition involving illegal drugs not forfeited “because the issues
presented can be resolved as a matter of law without reference to the sentencing record in
the trial court”].)
       The term “dangerous drugs” is indeed open to interpretation. Therefore, to avoid
confusion, we agree with defendant’s proposal (the People also agree) to modify the
condition to replace the term “dangerous drugs” with “controlled substances.” (See
People v. Orozco (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 726, 733 [noting that the California Uniform
Controlled Substances Act replaced the term “restricted dangerous drugs” with the more
comprehensive term, “controlled substances”].)

                                             3
                                      DISPOSITION
       The challenged probation condition is modified to provide as follows: “Defendant
not associate with persons he or she knows to be illegal users or sellers of marijuana,
controlled substances, or narcotics, nor be in places where he or she knows illegal
narcotics and/or controlled substances are present.” As modified, the judgment is
affirmed.

                                                      /s/
                                                  HORST, J.

We concur:

    /s/
RENNER, Acting P. J.

    /s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

 Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                             4