In re Francisco A. CA4/1

Filed 4/30/25 In re Francisco A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re FRANCISCO A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D083563 THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM244080) v.

FRANCISCO A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Tilisha Martin, Judge. Affirmed. Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Liz Olukoya, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Francisco A. challenges the constitutionality of a probation condition that requires him to submit his electronic devices to a search. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we affirm. I. Francisco, a gang member, shot and killed Damien Estrada, a rival gang member. After shooting Estrada, Francisco called a member of his gang to pick him up. The fellow gang member drove Francisco to his house. The juvenile court found Francisco, a minor, in violation of possession of a concealable firearm (Pen. Code, § 29610; count 1), possession of live ammunition (§ 29650; count 2), battery on a peace officer (§ 243(b); count 3), and murder (§ 187(a); count 4), and found true a gun enhancement (§ 12022.53(d)). The court declared Francisco a ward of the state and sentenced him to seven years in a youth treatment facility, with a maximum term of confinement of one year and eight months plus 50 years to life. As one of the probation conditions, the court imposed—without objection—a Fourth Amendment waiver “extending” to Francisco’s “electronic devices.” In imposing this condition, the court found a “nexus” based on Francisco’s “call for assistance once the incident occurred where [Estrada’s] life was lost.” II. Francisco claims the electronic search condition is facially, unconstitutionally overbroad. The People counter Francisco’s claim is an as-applied challenge he forfeited by failing to object below. We agree with the People. We review this constitutional challenge de novo. (In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143.)