P. v. Sandoval CA1/2 filed 7/30/26

Filed 7/30/26 P. v. Sandoval CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MATEO JULIAN SANDOVAL,
Defendant and Appellant.

A174472

(Mendocino CountySuper.
Ct.No. 25CR07325)

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant Mateo Julian Sandoval entered pleas to evading a peace officer and misdemeanorresisting a peace officer, and the trial court placed him on two years’probation.
On appeal, defendant challengesas unreasonable fourterms of his probation that relate to gang activity, and he argues that one of thegang terms is also unconstitutionally vague. The Attorney General responds that gang terms are reasonably related to preventing future criminalityin this case,but heagrees probation condition number 48 should be modified.
We will modify probation condition number 48 and otherwise affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Mendocino County District Attorney charged defendant with evading a peace officer, a felony (Veh. Code, §2800.2, subd. (a); count 1) and resisting, obstructing, and delaying a peace officer, a misdemeanor(Pen. Code, §148, subd.(a)(1); count 2). The parties reached a plea agreement, under which defendant pleadedno contestto both charges in exchange for a suspended three-year sentence and two years of probation.
At the plea hearing, the prosecutor stated the following factual basis for defendant’s plea: “[O]n March 27th, 2025, Ukiah Police Department Officer Chen was on patrol.· He did observe the defendant driving a vehicle at a speed that he believed was unsafe for conditions. He did pull over the defendant here in Mendocino County in Ukiah, and he requested the defendant exit his vehicle to perform standardized field sobriety tests. [¶] The defendant indicated he would not be exiting his vehicle, and after some conversation with the officer, he then shifted his vehicle into drive and accelerated away from the officer. The officer watched him as he drove around the CVS parking lot, making a loop, and then exiting onto Pomeroy Street. [¶] As he was exiting, the officer observed him nearly crash into the back of Sergeant Chaney’s marked patrol vehicle. He then observed the defendant driving away at a high rate of speed. He noted that[,]as it was raining presently, the speed the defendant was driving was unsafe based upon his training in high-speed driving as part of the POST academy. Allthis was in the county of Mendocino.”(It is notdisputed that defendant’s current convictions are not gang related.)
The Mendocino County Probation Department’s presentence investigation report and recommendation (probation report)documented defendant’s criminal history. Defendant, then 29 years old, had four prior felony convictions and one prior misdemeanor, and “Despite his young age, his criminal record spans more than a decade and includes offenses such as disturbing the peace (with gang enhancement), possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, and two prior evading charges, one of which included a gang enhancement.” Defendant had beenplaced on formal probation with gang terms in Sonoma County in 2015, hehad served two state prison termsbeginning in 2016 and again in 2019, and he was discharged from post-release community supervision in 2023.
The probation report recommended the court “impose gang terms” for defendant’s probation, explaining: “During the PSI [presentence investigation] interview, [defendant] admitted he is a documented Norteño gang member. In addition, Probation reviewed prior PSI reports from Sonoma County, which outlined his long-standinginvolvement with the Norteño criminal street gang, reportedly beginning when he was just 14-or-15 [sic] years old. Notably, his 2014 and 2015 charges included gang enhancements. Those same reports also indicated law enforcement had documented multiple photographs of the defendant displaying gang hand signs, and he had previously been found in possession of gang-related indicia. Moreover, his 2019 PSI notes jail incidents in which the defendant was involved in gang-relatedphysicalaltercations occurring in 2018. Based on the above, we believe the imposition of gang terms is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.”
At the sentencing hearing, defendant’s attorney objected to the recommendedgang terms stating, the “current case has nothing to do with gangs,” defendant’s “rap sheet does not show gang involvement,” and the attorneydid not “have access to the Sonoma County report.” She acknowledged that defendant “did self-identify” as a documented gang member, but she stated, “I believe he’s be[en] out of that lifestyle for a while.”
The trial court imposed the recommended gang terms, finding “there is reasonable information, reliable information, contained in the presentence report that indicated to this court that having gang terms would help and are reasonably related to future criminality and would help with the reformation and rehabilitation of Mr. Sandoval.”The court noted defendant stated he was a documented Norteño gang member and “didn’t say he was a dropout” and he previously had been on probation in Sonoma County with gang terms.
Defendant stated he was “a family man now,” and he was “trying to get custody and do what I have to do.”
The gang-related probation conditions provide:
“47. You shall not be an active participant of any gang, act in furtherance of, in association with or for thebenefit of any gang.
“48. You shall not associate with any person known to you as a gang member, and you shall not frequent any area where gang members are known to congregate, or areas known for gang-related activity.
“49. You shall not wear or possess any clothing, or items, or display any hand signs with gang significance, or which are indicia of gang membership (ie colors, symbols, insignias, numbers, monikers, patterns, etc.) known to be such, as may be identified as such by law enforcement.
“50. You shall not obtain any new gang-related tattoos,brands, burns, piercing, or voluntary scarring; and shallpermit photographing of all tattoos that exist to thedate of this order.”
DISCUSSION
A.The Imposition of Gang Terms in General
1.Applicable Law and Standard of Review
“‘Probation is generally reserved for convicted criminals whose conditional release into society poses minimal risk to public safety and promotes rehabilitation. [Citation.] The sentencing court has broad discretion to determine whether an eligible defendant is suitable for probation and, if so, under what conditions. [Citations.] The primary goal of probation is to ensure “[t]he safety of the public . . . through the enforcement of court-ordered conditions of probation.”(Pen.Code, §1202.7.)’ [Citation.] Accordingly, the Legislature has empowered the court, in making a probation determination, to impose any ‘reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer. . . .’(Pen.Code, §1203.1, subd. (j).)” (People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379 (Olguin).) “If a defendant believes the conditions of probation are more onerous than the potential sentence, he or she may refuse probation and choose to serve the sentence.” (Ibid.)
We review a probation “condition for abuse of discretion, that is, for an indication that the condition is ‘arbitrary or capricious’ or otherwise exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances.” (Olguin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 384.)
Under the three-prong test of People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent), “[a] condition of probation will not be held invalid unlessit ‘(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)requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.’ ”(Id. at p. 486.) The Lent “test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.” (Olguin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 379.) Accordingly, “even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long as the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.” (Id. at p. 380 [probation term requiring defendant to notify probationabout the presence of pets was valid even though unrelated to theconviction of driving under the influence of alcohol and pet ownership is not criminal because the pet notification condition was “reasonably related to the supervision of defendant and hence to his rehabilitation and potential future criminality”].)
2.Analysis
Defendant contends the gang terms—probation condition numbers 47 through 50—are unreasonable under the three-prong test of Lent. The parties agree these terms are not related to defendant’s current convictions and the conduct prohibited is not itself criminal. The only dispute is whetherthe terms are “‘reasonably related to future criminality.’ ” (Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 486.)
Defendant argues these probation conditions “are not reasonably related to future criminality because the evidence of Mr. Sandoval’s former gang membership is outdated and too attenuated from his present circumstances to indicate a risk of future gang activity.” We are not persuaded. The record shows defendant became involved with the Norteños when he was 14 or 15 years old, he was convicted of crimes with gang enhancements when he was around 18 and 19 years old, and he was involved in more than one gang-related physical altercation in 2018 when he was around 21 or 22 years old. In his recent interview with the probation department, “defendant stated he isa documented Norteño gang member” and “declined to provide further details” at “the advice of his attorney.” (Italics added.) Thus,defendant’s documented gang involvementbegan at a young age, involved criminal conduct and physical altercations,and spanned many years; and, notwithstanding defendant’s statement that he is a family man now, the trial court reasonably observed therewas no evidence he has definitively disassociated from the Norteños. We easily conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that gang termswere “fitting and proper . . . generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer” (Pen. Code, §1203.1, subd. (j)) on the facts of the case.
B.Probation Condition Number 48
Probation condition number 48 provides: “You shall not associate with any person known to you as a gang member, and you shall not frequent any area where gang members are known to congregate, or areas known for gang-related activity.” (Italics added.)
Defendant argues the terms “frequent” and “areas known for gang-related activity” are unconstitutionally vague.(See In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1072 [probation condition “‘[t]hat the minor not frequent any areas of gang related activity’” was objectionable because the verb “ ‘frequent’ ” “would be especially challenging to understand”; “ ‘frequent’ ” should be replaced with “visit”]; Victor L., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pp. 913–914 [probation condition prohibiting minor from being in “‘areas known . . . for gang-related activity’ ” was “impermissibly vaguein that it does not provide notice of what areas [the minor] may not frequent or what types of activities he must shun”].)
In Victor L., we considered a similar probation condition that required the minor “to stay away from ‘areas known by [him] for gang-related activity.’ ” (182 Cal.App.4th at p. 913.) We found “the condition as written, without further specificity, [wa]s not sufficiently clear to put [the minor] on notice of the prohibited conduct.” (Id. at p. 916.) However, we declined to remand the matter to the trial court to reform the probation condition, observing, “[t]o require the judge in each probation order to specify exactly which areas are forbidden to the individual gang member would impose an undue burden on the judiciary.” (Id. at p. 917.) Instead, we “elect[ed] to modify the condition of probation to provide for the probation officer to notify [the minor] of the areas he must avoid,” as this approach was “implied in law in order to avoid a claim of unconstitutional vagueness.” (Id. at pp. 917–918.) We modified the probation term to read in relevant part, “‘The Minor shall not bein . . . areas known by Minor for gang-related activity (or specified by his probation officer as involving gang-related activity).” (Id. at pp. 931–932, italics omitted.)
In this case, the Attorney General agrees with defendant thatthe current language of probation condition number 48 is vague and urges that we modify the condition as was done in Victor L. In his reply, defendant proposesa modification of probation condition number 48 that deletes the word “frequent” and substitutes the word “visit” and that specifies the prohibited areas includes those “designated by your probation officer.”
We will modify the condition to read: “You shall not associate with any person known to youas a gang member, and you shall not visit any areawhere gang members are known by you to congregate or anyarea known by you for gang-related activity (or as designatedby your probation officer), unless you have priorauthorization from your probation officer.” This modification comports with Victor L., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th 902, and In re H.C., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th 1067.
DISPOSITION
Probation condition number 48 is modified to read, “You shall not associate with any person known to you as a gang member, and you shall not visit any area where gang members are known by you to congregate or any area known by you for gang-related activity (or as designated by your probation officer), unless you have prior authorization from your probation officer.” In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

_________________________
Miller, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Stewart, P.J.

_________________________
Desautels, J.

A174472, People v. Sandoval