People v. Porcadilla CA4/1

DISCUSSION

I

Standard of Review

Porcadilla's contentions raise pure questions of law subject to de novo review. (In

re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143 ["[W]e review constitutional challenges

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

2 to a probation condition de novo."], citing In re J.H. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 174, 183.)

Although Porcadilla did not challenge the conditions at the time they were imposed, the

People agree his claims are not forfeited on appeal. (In re Shaun R., at p. 1143 ["failure

to object on the ground that a probation condition is unconstitutionally vague or

overbroad is not forfeited on appeal" so long as circumstances present pure questions of

law], citing In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889.)

II

Probation Conditions

Trial courts have broad discretion to "impose . . . reasonable [probation]

conditions, as [they] may determine are fitting and proper . . . for the reformation and

rehabilitation of the probationer . . . ." (§ 1203.1(j).) This discretion, however, "is not

unbounded." (People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 624.) To be valid, a

probation condition "must (1) . . .…