People v. Dubberke CA2/8

DISCUSSION

We review de novo a challenge to a probation condition as unconstitutionally overbroad or vague.2 (People v. Arevalo (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 652, 656, citing Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at

The People concede that Dubberke’s claim is not forfeited by failing to raise it below because his claim is a facial, constitutional challenge that raises purely legal questions and does not require reference to the factual record, so it may be raised for the first time on appeal. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889 (Sheena K.).)

3 pp. 888–889; In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143; In re J.H. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 174, 183.) “In granting probation, courts have broad discretion to impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety . . . .” (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120.)

I. The Challenged Probation Condition Is Not

Unconstitutionally Overbroad Dubberke first argues that the challenged probation condition is overbroad because it prevents his possession of “all knives” and because the inclusion of the words “concealable weapons” unconstitutionally restricts his possession of all kinds of benign and ordinary…