Filed 4/3/17 P. v. Bynum CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHRISTOPHER JAMES BYNUM,
Defendant and Appellant.
A148004
(Lake County
Super. Ct. No. CR931355)
Defendant Christopher James Bynum appeals from a judgment of conviction after pleading no contest to a felony charge of possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three yearssubject to various terms and conditions. The probationary terms and conditions were accepted by defendant without objection and, as to a gambling prohibition condition, specifically requested by defendant.
On appeal defendant challenges four probationary terms and conditions
1) he “will not possess, use, nor have in his control any type of illegal drug, controlled substance, or marijuana without legal authorization;” (2) he “shall not use nor have in his possession or in any area under his control any product such as ‘Herbal Clean,’ ‘Klear,’ or any other similar product whose primary purpose is to mask or flush the presence of drugs from [his] system;” (3) he “will not possess, nor have in his control any type of firearm, or a deadly weapon as defined by Penal Code Section 16590;” and (4) he “will abstain from gambling and will not be in or about any casino or other place where the primary activity is gambling and will not possess any gambling tokens, receipts or implements, until such time as all probation fines, fees and restitution are paid in full.” According to defendant, the described probationary terms and conditions are unconstitutionally vague on their face because they fail to provide a knowledge qualification that would require him to knowingly possess a prohibited item or knowingly place himself in a prohibited place. To remedy the purported unconstitutional vagueness of the probationary terms and conditions, defendant asks us to modify them to include a knowledge requirement. However, as our Supreme Court has recently explained, the probationary terms and conditions now challenged on appeal “already include an implicit” knowledge requirement, “and thus afforddefendant fair notice of the conduct required of him.” (People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 497.) “Because no change to the substance of [the four probationary terms and conditions] would be wrought by adding the word ‘knowingly,’ we decline defendant’s invitation to modify [them] simply to make explicit what the law already makes implicit.” (Id. at p. 503, fn. omitted.)DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
_________________________
Jenkins, J.
We concur:
_________________________
McGuiness, P. J.
_________________________
Siggins, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
People v. Christopher James Bynum, A148004
