People v. Alhassan CA4/1

Filed 8/7/25 P. v. Alhassan CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, D084277

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE421979)

ISMAIL ALHASSAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lilys D. McCoy, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers and Caelle Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Ismail Alhassan appeals from a judgment of felony probation after a jury convicted him of committing a lewd act on a 15-year-old boy. He only challenges two of the conditions of probation on appeal. We modify these conditions and affirm the judgment as modified.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A jury convicted Alhassan of one count of committing a lewd act upon a child 14 or 15 years old. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1).) The conviction was based on an incident when Alhassan approached a 15-year-old boy at a bus stop, tried to engage him in conversation, got on the same bus and sat close to him, got off the bus at the same stop, and eventually touched and caressed the boy’s genitals without his consent. At sentencing, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Alhassan on two years formal probation with conditions. Probation condition 10(O) stated: “Do not knowingly possess/have in your home toys, video games, or similar items that you know, or your P.O. or other law enforcement officer informs you, attracts children.” Alhassan did not object to this condition at sentencing. Alhassan did object to probation condition 10(Q), which stated: “Do not participate in computer chat rooms or otherwise knowingly contact minors, or persons you believe to be minors, via computer.” Alhassan argued at sentencing that this condition should be limited to “computer chat rooms involving minors” and should not apply to adult chat rooms. The court orally agreed to modify this condition to state: “Do not participate in computer chat rooms unless they are clearly for adults and there are no children present.” However, the final written order granting probation did not include this modification. DISCUSSION Alhassan first argues that probation condition 10(O) regarding possession of toys, video games, or similar items that “attract children” should be stricken as unconstitutionally vague. Although the People assert that Alhassan forfeited this contention, they “nonetheless agree[] that the