P. v. Lindberg

Filed 9/15/06 P. v. Lindberg CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G. Rogers, Judge. Affirmed.

Travis Lindberg (Lindberg) entered a negotiated guilty plea to unlawfully causing a fire that caused great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 452, subd. (a).) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Lindberg on probation for four years, including various probation conditions. Among those conditions were several relating to alcohol and drug abuse treatment, to which Lindberg objected.

On appeal, Lindberg contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing drug and alcohol counseling and treatment probation conditions as his conviction was not a drug-related offense, he has no history of committing drug offenses and does not have a drug problem. We conclude Lindberg's argument lacks merit and, accordingly, affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Early in the morning of April 22, 2005, Lindberg and a companion were in the Lindberg family's garage. Lindberg lit a roll of paper towels on fire and kicked the burning roll into the rafters. Burning towels fell onto a couch stored in the garage, setting the couch on fire. When appellant could not put out the fire, he got some blankets and went to a hill outside the residence and fell asleep. Lindberg's stepfather awoke to the smell of smoke, went to the garage and severely burned his feet when he opened the garage door.[1]

Lindberg was charged with one felony count of arson pursuant to Penal Code section 451, subdivision (a). He later pled guilty to unlawfully causing a fire under section 452, subdivision (a). The court accepted the plea and ordered a report from the probation department.

The probation report informed the court that Lindberg told investigators he had smoked marijuana the night of the fire. Lindberg's mother reported she believed Lindberg was smoking marijuana at the time the fire started. Chris R., the minor with Lindberg the night of the fire, reported Lindberg took eight Tylenol tablets the night of the fire. The probation report also informed the court that in a prior juvenile matter Lindberg was required to drug test and was treated for drug abuse.

A presentence report by Dr. Matthew Carroll provided to the court strongly recommended Lindberg have frequent random drug testing and, if he tests positive, that he attend drug treatment.

A psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Amanda Ruiz, presented by Lindberg to the court, recommended that Lindberg be ordered into mandatory residential treatment for no less than six months to address, among other things, "his tendencies to abuse substances."

At the sentencing hearing, the court placed Lindberg on probation with conditions, among others, that he attend and successfully complete substance abuse counseling; complete a program of residential treatment, if directed by the probation officer; and attend meetings of Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous or similar organization, if directed by the probation officer.

DISCUSSION

Lindberg contends the trial court abused its discretion when it included drug conditions in the probation order, as arson -- the crime to which he plead guilty -- is not a drug-related offense. He also asserts that the probation condition is not valid and does not foster rehabilitation or reformation as he has no drug offense record and does not have a drug problem.

We analyze Lindberg's contentions below, after setting forth the appropriate standard of review.

Trial courts have broad discretion in determining whether to grant probation to determine the conditions thereof. (People v. Peck (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 351, 362; People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120.) "A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it '(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct . . . not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct . . . not reasonably related to future criminality . . . .' [Citation.] Conversely, a condition of probation which requires or forbids conduct . . . not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality." (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, fn. omitted.) All three factors must be present for the probation condition to be held invalid. (People v. Wardlow (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 360, 365-366.)

We determine the trial court acted well within its broad discretion in conditioning Lindberg's probation on substance abuse counseling and drug and alcohol treatment, if directed by the probation officer. The record contains substantial evidence that Lindberg used illegal drugs before committing the arson to which he pled guilty and, therefore, there is a relationship between illegal drug usage and the crime. Lindberg's mother told fire inspectors that she believed Lindberg and his companion were smoking marijuana when the incident occurred. Lindberg admitted smoking marijuana the evening of the fire.

Moreover, the probation condition that Lindberg undergo drug treatment, if directed by his probation officer, is reasonably related to preventing Lindberg's future criminality. Lindberg's evaluating psychiatrist, Dr. Ruiz, noted that he had abused alcohol, recently used cannabis, and had substance abuse tendencies. Dr. Carroll's presentence report recommended mandatory drug testing and treatment, if drug usage was confirmed. Given this evidence, the court could rationally presume that drug treatment at the direction of the probation officer was a reasonable probation condition that would enable the probation department to supervise Lindberg's compliance with other probation conditions, including the condition to comply with all laws. (People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1240-1241.)

Given this record, we cannot find that the court abused its discretion in ordering the probation conditions in question. Accordingly, we affirm.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

McDONALD, Acting P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.

[1] The statement of facts is drawn from the probation report contained in the record.