People v. Cura CA1/3

DISCUSSION

Cura argues, and the Attorney General agrees, that the probationary term directing compliance with the section 3003.5(b) residency restriction must be stricken because the statute applies only to parolees, not probationers. As we now discuss, we agree with the parties that the statutory residency restriction should be stricken as a term of probation.2 Proposition 83, known as the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act, enacted on November 7, 2006, was a “wide-ranging initiative intended to ‘help 2 Cura’s “acceptance of the conditions of probation does not preclude him from challenging them on appeal: ‘ “[I]t is established that if a defendant accepts probation, he may seek relief from the restraint of an allegedly invalid condition of probation on appeal from the order granting probation.” ’ ” (People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355, fn. 1.)

2 Californians better protect themselves, their children, and their communities’ ([Proposition 83,] § 2, subd. (f)) from problems posed by sex offenders by ‘strengthen[ing] and improv[ing] the laws that punish and control sexual offenders’ (id., § 31).” (In re E.J. (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1258, 1263 (E.J.).) “Among other…