People v. Rein CA3

Filed 2/24/14 P. v. Rein CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer)

THE PEOPLE, C073651

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62115140)

v.

JUSTIN PETER REIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Justin Peter Rein pleaded no contest to felony unlawful intercourse with a person under 18. (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c).)1 The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years’ formal probation, ordered him to register as a sex offender (§§ 290, 290.006), and imposed various fines and fees. On appeal, defendant contends the sex offender registration order was erroneous, several fines and assessments were erroneously imposed as conditions of probation, and ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Twenty-one-year-old defendant met 16-year-old M.M. on Xbox live, an online service for the Xbox 360 video game console. From May 21, 2012, through July 14, 2012, the two exchanged 11,251 text messages. Many of the texts were of a sexual nature; at one point defendant and M.M. sent naked photographs of themselves to each other. During the texts, defendant and M.M. told each other their respective ages. On July 13, 2012, defendant flew from his home in New York to Sacramento, where M.M. picked him up at the airport. The couple went to a Rocklin hotel and had intercourse. M.M.’s mother discovered the tryst through Facebook and alerted police. Officers apprehended defendant at the hotel. At the change of plea hearing, defense counsel stated that whether defendant would be subject to section 290 sex offender registration would be left to the trial court after argument from the parties at sentencing. The trial court ordered a mental health evaluation of defendant at the change of plea hearing. The evaluation found defendant’s crime had a predatory quality and he had a predisposition to commit sexual offenses. Defendant therefore likely posed “a danger to the health and safety of others in the community in terms of a sexual reoffense.” The evaluator recommended sex offender registration for defendant. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued defendant was not the type of person the Legislature intended to apply lifetime sex offender registration. Counsel did not assert the trial court could not impose sex offender registration. The trial court imposed sex offender registration based on the mental health evaluation and the similar observations about defendant contained in the probation report. DISCUSSION I Defendant contends the trial court erred in ordering him to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290 at the time it placed him on probation. Relying on our