probation condition bar in California

2023(See People v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1195 [“the condition’s limitation on interstate travel is closely tailored to the purpose of monitoring defendant’s travel to and from California not by barring his ability to travel altogether but by requiring that he first obtain written permission before doing so”]; In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 942 (Antonio R.) [a minor’s constitutional rights were not “impermissibly burdened” by a probation condition restricting travel to Los Angeles County from Orange County in light of the “safety valve” that allowed such travel with the per

2023(Relkin, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 1195 [“the condition’s limitation on interstate travel is closely tailored to the purpose of monitoring defendant’s travel to and from California not by barring his ability to travel altogether but by requiring that he first obtain written permission before doing so”]; In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 942 (Antonio R.) [a minor’s constitutional rights were not “impermissibly burdened” by a probation condition restricting travel to Los Angeles County from Orange County in light of the “safety valve” that allowed such travel with the permission of a

2023(See People v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1195 [“the condition’s limitation on interstate travel is closely tailored to the purpose of monitoring defendant’s travel to and from California not by barring his ability to travel altogether but by requiring that he first obtain written permission before doing so”]; In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 942 (Antonio R.) [a minor’s constitutional rights were not “impermissibly burdened” by a probation condition restricting travel to Los Angeles County from Orange County in light of the “safety valve” that allowed such travel with the per

2023(See People v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1195 [“the condition’s limitation on interstate travel is closely tailored to the purpose of monitoring defendant’s travel to and from California not by barring his ability to travel altogether but by requiring that he first obtain written permission before doing so”]; In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 942 (Antonio R.) [a minor’s constitutional rights were not “impermissibly burdened” by a probation condition restricting travel to Los Angeles County from Orange County in light of the “safety valve” that allowed such travel with the per

2023(See People v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1195 [“the condition’s limitation on interstate travel is closely tailored to the purpose of monitoring defendant’s travel to and from California not by barring his ability to travel altogether but by requiring that he first obtain written permission before doing so”]; In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 942 (Antonio R.) [a minor’s constitutional rights were not “impermissibly burdened” by a probation condition restricting travel to Los Angeles County from Orange County in light of the “safety valve” that allowed such travel with the per

2023(Relkin, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 1195 [“the condition’s limitation on interstate travel is closely tailored to the purpose of monitoring defendant’s travel to and from California not by barring his ability to travel altogether but by requiring that he first obtain written permission before doing so”]; In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 942 (Antonio R.) [a minor’s constitutional rights were not “impermissibly burdened” by a probation condition restricting travel to Los Angeles County from Orange County in light of the “safety valve” that allowed such travel with the permission of a

2024(See, e.g., People v. Arevalo, supra, 19 Cal.App.5th at p. 657 [residence]; People v. Burden (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1280-1281 [employment].) Gonzalez has not shown such conditions are invalid in all applications (People v. Patton, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 946 [facial challenge to a probation condition is a claim that a condition “cannot have any valid application”]); he merely speculates his probation officer will act unreasonably in approving his residence or employment.

2024(See, e.g., People v. Arevalo, supra, 19 Cal.App.5th at p. 657 [residence]; People v. Burden (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1280-1281 [employment].) Gonzalez has not shown such conditions are invalid in all applications (People v. Patton, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 946 [facial challenge to a probation condition is a claim that a condition “cannot have any valid application”]); he merely speculates his probation officer will act unreasonably in approving his residence or employment.

2023(See People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120, fn. 5 ; In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 611 .) A ruling on the validity of the challenged probation condition would have no practical effect and would not provide any effective relief to Reeves. 3 Reeves concedes that his probation condition challenge is moot, but asks us to consider the issue because, he argues, it is an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur and the issue may recur between the parties here.

2021A defendant may raise for the first time on appeal a facial constitutional defect in a probation condition which claim involves “ ‘ “pure questions of law that can be resolved without reference to the particular sentencing record developed in the trial court.” ’ ” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 4 40 Cal.4th 875, 889 (Sheena K.).) A facial constitutional challenge to the “phrasing or language of a probation condition . . . does not require scrutiny of individual facts and circumstances but instead requires the review of abstract and generalized legal concepts—a task that is well suited to the role of

2021(Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 887 .) Stated another way, not “ ‘all constitutional defects in conditions of probation may be raised for the first time on appeal, since there may be circumstances that do not present “pure questions of law that can be resolved without reference to the particular sentencing record developed in the trial court.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 889.) Such is not the case here.