Error and/or relief
On appeal, the minor contends that the electronics search conditions should be stricken as unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 or, at a minimum, modified as unconstitutionally overbroad. He also maintains that the association condition should be modified due to its overbreadth. We find the electronics search conditions reasonable under Lent, but we accept the People’s concession that they are unconstitutionally overbroad. We see no constitutional infirmity in the association condition. We therefore remand the matter to the trial court to strike or modify the electronics search condition. Remanded to modify terms 9 and 16
First Holding:
Under Lent, 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) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. We find dispositive the first element of Lent’s test, which asks whether the probation condition has no relationship to the conviction. Here, the record supports an implied finding that there was a relationship between the offense and minor’s use of an electronic device and the internet.
Authority:
People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486
People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379
People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 945
Second Holding:
The failure to object to a probation condition as unreasonable under Lent generally forfeits the contention on appeal. Only facial constitutional challenges to a probation condition that are capable of correction without reference to the particular sentencing record are exempt from the general forfeiture rule.
Authority:
People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234-235, 237
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887
Third Holding:
The court may nevertheless exercise its discretion to consider the merits of both his Lent and constitutional claims in light of the People’s concession and the minor’s alternative contention that his trial counsel’s failure to make an adequate objection constituted ineffective assistance.
Authority:
People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 854 [considering issues not raised in trial court to forestall later claim of constitutionally inadequate representation]
People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [appellate courts may reach unpreserved questions]
Fourth Holding:
In applying the Lent test, we review the conditions imposed for abuse of discretion.
Authority:
In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118
People v. Salvador (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 57, 62, 64
Fifth Holding:
We review constitutional overbreadth questions de novo
Authority:
In re P.O. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288, 297
Sixth Holding:
The electronic search conditions here were overly broad.
Authority:
People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355 [If a probation condition serves to rehabilitate and protect public safety, the condition may impinge upon a constitutional right otherwise enjoyed by the probationer, who is not entitled to the same degree of constitutional protection as other citizens.]
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890 [A probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad.]
In re E.O. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153 [The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the defendant’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement]