People v. Galindo CA4/3

DISCUSSION

Galindo’s sole argument on appeal is that probation condition No. 7 is invalid and constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority to the probation officer. The probation condition in question reads: “Cooperate with the probation officer in any plan for psychiatric, psychological, alcohol and/or drug treatment, or counseling until mutual release of the treating agent/resource and the probation officer.” This

3 condition was recommended in the probation and sentencing report prepared before the sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, Galindo’s counsel objected to this term: “I understand this is a normal term, to cooperate for any plan for psychiatric, psychological, alcohol, and/or drug treatment, but I would object to, you know, the psychiatric, psychological, alcohol, and drug treatment if that’s suggested. There’s no indication that that has ever been an issue in this case.” “[A] sentencing court has ‘broad discretion to impose [probation] conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1.’ [Citation.] But such discretion is not unlimited: ‘[A] condition of probation must serve a purpose…