California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Milan, D071026 (Cal. App. 2017):
Milan argues courts have not limited the exception so strictly in practice, and thus this court should not do so either, but the cases he relies on do not support his assertion. In People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, the appellate court considered the "fact" that the defendant did not live in a small town when it addressed the constitutionality of a condition restricting the defendant's access to certain stores despite the defendant's failure to object to the condition in the trial court. (Id. at p. 883.) However, the court in Contreras did not need to look to the record to determine the size of the town at issue, and there is no indication it did so, because the probation condition
Page 7
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.