People v. Conatser CA1/3

Discussion Defendant challenges as unconstitutionally vague the following conditions of his mandatory supervision: “10. Do not use, consume or possess any non-prescribed or illegal substances, including medical marijuana, unless specifically authorized by the court. Provide the probation officer with verification of any prescribed controlled substance within 72 hours of it being prescribed. [¶] . . . [¶] 15. Do not own or possess any firearm, ammunition, or other dangerous or deadly weapon.” “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ ” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890.) To survive a challenge for vagueness, “[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.’ ” (Ibid.) A probation condition passes constitutional muster so long as it spells out with “reasonable specificity” what is prohibited in such a way that persons of common intelligence need not guess at its meaning or differ as to its application. (Ibid.) Initially, defendant argues that the “use of the word ‘non-prescribed’ in the substances…