People v. Banderas CA4/3

Filed 9/16/25 P. v. Banderas CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063529

v. (Super. Ct. No. 23NF1047)

DANIEL BANDERAS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael A. Leversen, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Nicholas Seymour, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Michael Patty, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Daniel Banderas appeals from a judgment granting probation conditioned on consent to electronic device searches. We agree with the parties the condition should be stricken. We remand with directions to strike the condition and otherwise affirm the judgment. FACTS Banderas hit a bicyclist while driving and was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court suspended imposition of a sentence and placed Banderas on probation for two years, conditioned on him submitting to searches and seizures demanded by peace officers. The prosecutor asked: “[W]ould the court impose search and seizure of . . . electronic devices?” Though Banderas objected that the condition was not “factually related to . . . this case,” the court decided to “include the electronic devices.” DISCUSSION “The Lent test” consists of “three prongs [that] must be satisfied [to] . . . invalidate a probation” condition: it must (1) have “‘“no relationship to the . . . convict[ion], (2) relate[] to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) require[] or forbid[] conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.”’” (In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118.)1 Ricardo applied Lent’s third prong to affirm the striking of an electronic device search condition (Ricardo, at pp. 1116–1117, 1119, 1129) as “substantially disproportionate to the legitimate interests in promoting rehabilitation and