People v. Delgado CA6

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant argues the probation condition imposed by the trial court prohibiting him from possessing or consuming illegal drugs or alcohol is unconstitutionally vague, because it lacks an express knowledge requirement. Defendant did not object to the imposition of the condition during his sentencing hearing. However, “[a] Court of Appeal may review the constitutionality of a probation condition, even when it has not been challenged in the trial court, if the question can be resolved as a matter of law without reference to the sentencing record. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888-889 (Sheena K.).) Our review of such a question is de novo.” (People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1345.) Here, defendant raises a facial vagueness challenge to the imposed probation condition. “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ ” (In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890.) “A probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of…