People v. Peake CA5

── People v. Peake CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/8/26 P. v. Peake CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F088397 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF72096, v. CRF72558, CRM72762) DOJON JAMES PEAKE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Laura Leslie Krieg, Judge. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Justin Pedroso, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Harrell, J.  INTRODUCTION Defendant Dojon James Peake (defendant) was convicted of bringing drug paraphernalia into a jail, failing to appear while on bail, and obstructing a peace officer. Defendant was granted probation for two years, which included the condition that defendant “Cooperate with the [p]robation [o]fficer in a plan for psychological/psychiatric and/or drug/alcohol treatment.” On appeal, defendant claims the drug and alcohol treatment probation condition is an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority because it requires the probation officer to identify the necessary treatment and decide between residential and outpatient treatment. The People disagree noting the trial court identified the treatment options probation could require while declining to delegate power to probation to decide between residential and outpatient treatment. We agree with the People and affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY1 On May 1, 2024, the Tuolumne County District Attorney filed a first amended consolidated information charging defendant with bringing drug paraphernalia into a jail (Pen. Code, § 4573;2 count 1), failing to appear while on bail (§ 1320.5; count 2), and misdemeanor resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3). It was alleged as to count 2 that defendant was released from custody on bail or on his own recognizance (§ 12022.1). A jury convicted defendant, finding him guilty on all counts and found the on bail enhancement true. At sentencing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant two years of probation under several terms and conditions. Defendant waived having the court read all the terms and conditions of probation and did not object to any of the terms or conditions imposed. One of the conditions of probation included, 1 The underlying facts related to defendant’s convictions are not relevant to the issue raised on appeal and are, therefore, intentionally omitted. 2 Hereinafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2. “Cooperate with the [p]robation [o]fficer in a plan for psychological/psychiatric and/or drug/alcohol treatment.” Defendant f