People v. Vaden CA5

Filed 11/3/25 P. v. Vaden CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088624 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F23905227) v.

EDWARD VADEN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gabriel L. Brickey, Judge. Brad L. Mahler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen, and Brook A. Bennigson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION Edward Vaden (appellant), a lifetime sex offender registrant pursuant to Penal Code1 section 290, was placed on formal probation after pleading no contest to failure to file a change of address (§ 290.013, subd. (a)) and failure to register after address change (§ 290, subd. (b)). As conditions of probation, the trial court ordered appellant to “obey all laws,” and to “register with local law enforcement pursuant to Penal Code section 290.” On appeal, appellant claims the imposition of the registration condition was unauthorized, because his current offenses do not trigger section 290 registration. He also contends the registration condition constitutes compelled expression in violation of the First Amendment. We conclude the probation condition was a valid exercise of the trial court’s authority to prohibit criminal conduct, and that appellant lacks standing to raise the constitutional claim. We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape (§ 220) in 1997. This conviction requires appellant to register as a sex offender for life. (§ 290, subds. (c)(1), (d)(3)(C)(3).) In 2023, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint charging appellant with failure to file a change of address (§ 290.013, subd. (a); count 1) and failure to register after address change (§ 290, subd. (b); count 2). The People also alleged appellant’s 1997 conviction for assault with intent to commit rape (§ 220) constitutes a prior strike conviction. (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)). We need not discuss the facts underlying the charged offenses because they are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal.