People v. Ashford CA1/4

Filed 2/6/25 P. v. Ashford CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169049 v. KHAI DMITRI ASHFORD, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 042301095) Defendant and Appellant.

Khai Dmitri Ashford appeals from an order placing him on probation after he pleaded no contest to charges stemming from an act of domestic violence against the mother of his children. He claims that a condition of his probation requiring him to submit to warrantless searches of his electronic devices is unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent)1 and unconstitutionally overbroad. The People agree the condition violates Lent, and so do we. Although Ashford forfeited the issue by failing to object at sentencing, we shall exercise our discretion to consider it, vacate the condition as worded, and remand so the condition may be better tailored to legitimate supervisory objectives.

1 Lent was superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People

v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403, footnote 6.

1

I. BACKGROUND Ashford was once married to the confidential victim (C.V.), who lived with their three children, and the two had an “on-and-off” relationship. They reunited several years ago after Ashford was released from prison, and Ashford moved in with C.V. and their children. At the time, Ashford was subject to a 10-year stay-away order protecting C.V., which was to expire in 2026. In August 2022, Ashford and C.V. had an argument in their kitchen. Ashford hit C.V. once in the face. Two of the children were in the living room and one was outside playing basketball. C.V. told the children to call the police. When she said this, Ashford gathered his things, took C.V.’s and the children’s phones, and left. C.V. told her son to call the police using their neighbor’s phone. At a police officer’s suggestion, C.V. and the children stayed in a hotel that night. When they returned home the next day, their phones were on a table inside. The People charged Ashford with domestic violence through corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code,2 § 273.5, subd. (a)), disobeying a protective or stay-away order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)), and three counts of removing a wireless device to prevent its use to notify law enforcement (§ 591.5). They further alleged Ashford had two prior serious or violent felony convictions (§§ 667, subds. (d) & (e), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)), commonly known as strikes,3 and was ineligible for probation as a result (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)). Ashford pleaded no contest to all five counts and admitted the two prior strikes and ineligibility for probation, along with several aggravating