People v. Ugarte CA4/2

DISCUSSION

As part of defendant’s split sentence, the trial court imposed mandatory

supervision terms including condition Nos. 5 and 17. Condition No. 5 states: “Do not

consume alcoholic beverages; do not frequent places where it is the main item of sale.”

Condition No. 17, in relevant part, states: “Do not knowingly own, possess, have under

your control or immediate access to any . . . incendiary device.” Defendant claims that

these terms and conditions must either be stricken or modified because they are

unconstitutionally vague.

In 2011, the Criminal Justice Realignment Act changed the paradigm for the

incarceration and post-conviction supervision of persons convicted of certain felony

offenses. (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 1; see People v. Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 664, 668

(Cruz).) Unlike parole, a felon participating in postrelease community supervision

cannot be returned to prison for violation of his or her postrelease supervision agreement.

(Pen. Code, § 3458.) Nor does the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation have

3 jurisdiction over persons subject to postrelease community supervision. (Pen Code,

§ 3457.) Rather, the legislation “shifted…