Court Opinion

ID: 9881434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-02 17:03:21.675436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:37.588717
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/29/23 P. v. Lozano CA4/1

                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,                                                          D081432

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCD290774)

JORGE SALVADOR LOZANO,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Peter L. Gallagher, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

         Aurora Elizabeth Bewicke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette
C. Cavalier, Kathryn A. Kirschbaum, and Maxine Hart, Deputies Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         Jorge Salvador Lozano appeals the order granting him probation after
a jury found him guilty of three crimes arising out of a confrontation with law
enforcement officers. He contends a condition in the written order forbidding
him to use marijuana even with a prescription must be stricken as
unconstitutionally overbroad or, alternatively, as in conflict with the
condition as orally pronounced by the sentencing court. We modify the
written condition to make it consistent with the court’s oral pronouncement
and affirm the order as so modified.
                               BACKGROUND
      San Diego police officers James Colbert and Andrew Castro were on
patrol when they received a report that a man was walking along a street
holding a hatchet and trying to open the doors of cars as they drove by. The
officers went to the scene and found Lozano standing in an intersection
holding the hatchet. When Castro commanded Lozano to drop the hatchet,
he did. Refusing commands to get on the ground, Lozano aggressively
advanced toward the officers; and as he approached, they saw a dagger
tucked in his waistband. Colbert fired his taser at Lozano, who fell to the
ground, but soon got up in defiance of commands to remain down. A scuffle
ensued during which Lozano struck Colbert and attempted to strike Castro.
Additional law enforcement officers arrived and subdued Lozano. A machete
and a glass pipe with a white crystalline substance were found concealed
under his clothing.
      A jury found Lozano guilty of two counts of forcefully resisting an
executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69) and one count of carrying a concealed dirk
or dagger (id., § 21310). At the sentencing hearing, the court stated it
wanted to continue the hearing to allow the probation department to perform
a full mental health workup and develop a treatment plan, but Lozano
refused the continuance. The court suspended imposition of sentence and
placed Lozano on formal probation for two years. Based on the nature of the

                                       2
incident from which the current convictions arose, the discovery of the pipe
with a white crystalline substance on Lozano’s person when he was arrested,
and his prior convictions of drug possession offenses, the probation officer
recommended and the court imposed drug-related conditions in an effort to
ensure Lozano’s sobriety. The court told Lozano: “Don’t use or possess a
controlled substance without a valid prescription”; and “No marijuana use
even with a medical card.” (Capitalization altered.) Lozano did not object to
any of the probation conditions at the sentencing hearing. The condition
prohibiting marijuana use later was written into the clerk’s minute order as
condition No. 14.a., as follows: “No marijuana use at all even with Medical
Card | Rec | Prescription.”
                                  DISCUSSION
      Lozano challenges the written probation condition on marijuana use
only to the extent it prohibits such use even with a prescription. He argues
that forbidding the use of a lawfully prescribed substance is
unconstitutionally overbroad and infringes on his federal and state
constitutional rights not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process
of law (U.S. Const., 14th Amend., § 1; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a)) and
his state constitutional right to privacy (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1).
Alternatively, Lozano argues the portion of the written order prohibiting
marijuana use even with a prescription is invalid because it is inconsistent
with the sentencing court’s oral pronouncement. He asks us to modify the
order by striking that portion.
      The People respond that Lozano’s failure to object at the sentencing
hearing forfeited any fact-dependent challenge to the condition prohibiting
marijuana use. They go on to argue the prohibition of marijuana use even
with a prescription is not unconstitutionally overbroad, because, they say,

                                         3
Lozano has no constitutional right to use marijuana for medical purposes and
the prohibition is reasonably related to rehabilitating him and to protecting
the public by keeping him sober. The People also argue there is no conflict
between the oral pronouncement and the written order, because, in their
view, both prohibit marijuana use without exception. They urge us to affirm
the order without modification, but “do[ ] not oppose modification of the
written condition to comport with the [sentencing] court’s oral
pronouncement.”
      Because the minute order is at least arguably inconsistent with the
court’s oral pronouncement and because the People do not oppose a
modification that would remove any inconsistency, we deem it appropriate to
order the modification Lozano has requested. Generally, any discrepancy
between the court’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing and the
clerk’s minute order is resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement. (E.g.,
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855; People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th
381, 384, fn. 2; People v. Connors (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 729, 734, fn. 3; People
v. Gabriel (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1073.) We therefore modify the
written marijuana use condition to make it conform to the condition orally
imposed by the court by deleting “at all” and “| Rec | Prescription” from the
minute order, so that it reads, “No marijuana use even with Medical Card.”
In disposing of the appeal on this ground, we follow the established rule of
avoiding decision of a constitutional question unless it is absolutely
necessary. (See, e.g., People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 401-402 & fn. 2;
People v. Leonard (1983) 34 Cal.3d 183, 187; Swart Enterprises, Inc. v.
Franchise Tax Bd. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 497, 513-514; City of Huntington
Park v. Superior Court (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1299.)

                                       4
                                DISPOSITION
      The written order granting formal probation is modified by striking
from condition No. 14.a. “at all” and “| Rec | Prescription,” so that it reads,
“No marijuana use even with Medical Card.” As so modified, the order is
affirmed.

                                                                       IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.

                                        5