In re G.M. CA4/1

DISCUSSION

On appeal, G.M. challenges the condition prohibiting “use, [sale], or [possession] of . . . non-prescribed medications,” arguing that (1) the condition is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, (2) the condition is invalid under the standard set forth in Lent, and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the condition. We address each argument in turn.

2 I A. Standard of Review We generally review probation conditions under an abuse of discretion standard when challenged on appeal. (In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118.) However, an exception applies when a condition is challenged on constitutional grounds. (People v. Brand (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 861, 867 (Brand).) We apply de novo review when evaluating constitutional challenges to probation conditions. (In re I.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 249, 261 (I.V.).) B. Analysis As a general matter, an appellate court will only consider claims that were properly raised and preserved in the trial court. (People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234–235 (Welch); see also Brand, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 867.) If a claim challenging a probation condition is raised for the first time on appeal, it is…