People v. Ammar CA1/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 24, 2024A168658California1,599 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goldman, J.

BACKGROUND

Over several months, Ammar repeatedly sent his former girlfriend Facebook messages threatening her and her family’s safety. Ammar later showed up at her place of work, a hair salon, prompting her to lock the door and shut the blinds while she worked. Ammar pled no contest on count I of felony stalking. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a).)2 The trial court suspended Ammar’s sentence and placed him on three years of probation subject to a number of conditions, including the two challenged in this appeal.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, although Ammar concedes that he did not object to either condition in the trial court, the Attorney General acknowledges that the claims are not forfeited because they raise a facial constitutional challenge that does not depend on scrutiny of the facts developed below. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887.) A constitutional challenge to a probation condition presents a question of law that we review de novo. (In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143.) Under the separation of powers doctrine, executive or administrative officers cannot exercise or interfere with judicial authority. (In re Danielle W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.