People v. Blanco CA4/1

Filed 9/17/25 P. v. Blanco CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084539

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD303505) JOSE PINEIRO BLANCO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed; remanded for correction to Protective Order (form CR-160). Stephanie L. Gunther, 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, Arlene A. Sevidal and Randall D. Einhorn, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jose Blanco appeals certain conditions of probation imposed on him by the trial court following his guilty plea. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing reasonable probation conditions, and we accordingly affirm the judgment. We remand for the limited purpose of

correcting the terms of the Protective Order to allow for peaceful exchange of the children for visitation, as pronounced by the court at sentencing.

BACKGROUND After an incident of domestic violence involving his ex-spouse, Blanco pled guilty to violating the personal liberty of another, in violation of Penal

Code sections 236 and 237.1 At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Blanco to a three-year term of formal probation with 179 days of custody and allowed him to serve the custody time through work furlough. In addition to his sentence, the court imposed a three-year protective order, directing Blanco to stay away from his ex-spouse, the victim of the offense to which he pled. The order granting probation included a requirement that Blanco “[s]ubmit [his] person, vehicle, residence, property, personal effects, computers, and recordable media to search at any time with or without a warrant, and with or without reasonable cause, when required by P.O. or law enforcement officer.” The order also included a requirement that Blanco “[f]ulfill California Child Support payments”. The Probation Report noted that the primary concern of the victim was that Blanco continue to pay his monthly child support obligation because she relied upon his financial support. At the sentencing hearing, the court emphasized the importance of Blanco paying his child support obligations, noting that the “reason . . .this [work furlough] deal was negotiated for you is so that you could continue to support your children while you rehabilitate.” At sentencing, Blanco objected to the support conditions, stating that issues of child support should be heard in the family court; but the court stated that to remain law-abiding as required by his probationary sentence,