“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 which is not in itself criminal, and (3
How later courts described this case
- “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 which is not in itself criminal, and (3
- “When a statute . . . lists several acts in the disjunctive, any one of which constitutes an offense, the complaint, in alleging more than one of such acts, should do so in the conjunctive to avoid uncertainty.”
- setting forth the test for an invalid probation term
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in People v. Moran
15 Cal.3d 481, 486 (Lent) superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403, fn. 6
Superseded on other grounds by People v. Wheeler, 4 Cal. 4th 284 (1992)
15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent), superseded on another ground as stated in People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284
Superseded on other grounds by People v. Moran, 1 Cal. 5th 398 (2016)
15 Cal.3d 481 , superseded on another ground as stated in People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403, fn. 6
Disagreed with by People v. Juan R. (In re Juan R.), 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262 (2018)
We respectfully disagree with our colleagues who have concluded Lent requires a condition to have a particularized tie between the minor's past conduct and the use of electronics.
Distinguished
Distinguished by People v. Richards, 17 Cal. 3d 614 (1976)
) As we noted in People v. Lent (1975) supra, 15 Cal.3d 481, 487, Miller, which may have involved uncharged crimes, is distinguishable on its facts from a case in which a defendant has actually been exonerated of criminal activity.
The opinion
*488 CLARK, J.
I concur in the judgment, but would qualify the statement that acquittal of the theft of the $1,278 “[o]rdinarily . . . would preclude inclusion of that item in the restitution order.” (Ante, p. 487.) I assume arguendo that the acquittal here would have precluded ordering restitution of the sum involved in that count, but for the fact that “additional circumstances were developed in the unusually prolonged probation hearing.” (Id.) However, when the' preponderance of the evidence produced at the trial itself supports such an order, additional evidence need not be presented at the probation hearing.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied December 17, 1975. Wright, C. J., and Sullivan, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.