People v. Jefferies-Echols CA3

Filed 8/26/14 P. v. Jefferies-Echols CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C071470

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62111466)

v.

JENNIFER LORRAYNE JEFFERIES-ECHOLS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jennifer Lorrayne Jefferies-Echols entered a plea of no contest to receiving aid by misrepresentation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2).) The trial court granted her three years of formal probation subject to certain terms and conditions with which she agreed to comply, including that she submit to random warrantless searches and seizures. On appeal, she contends imposition of the search condition was an abuse of the court’s discretion. We affirm the judgment.

1

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

This summary of facts is taken from the stated factual basis for defendant’s plea as agreed upon by the parties: “[D]efendant applied for and received aid and intentionally falsified paperwork and failed to report . . . income from unemployment insurance benefits,” resulting in an overpayment of benefits to defendant in the amount of $16,222. Defendant was charged with perjury by false application for aid (Pen. Code, § 118—count one) and receiving aid by misrepresentation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2)—count two), both felonies. At the time defendant entered her no contest plea to count two, defense counsel objected to the probation condition requiring her to “[s]ubmit person, place of residence, vehicle or area over which [defendant] has control to search and seizure at any time, day or night, with or without a search warrant, and with or without probable cause, by the probation officer or any peace officer for the purpose of determining compliance with conditions of release or probation.” Defense counsel objected to the search and seizure condition as not reasonably related to defendant’s crime, and argued that “this is not the type of theft case where [defendant] took some item and placed it in her – hid it in her jacket and left the store or something like that. This is where she failed to report something.” Counsel further argued that because defendant would be unable to receive welfare in the future, “it is very unlikely that she would ever . . . be able to commit this same crime. And even if she did, search and seizure is still not something that is going to help law enforcement determine that she is committing a crime like this.” The prosecution argued it was possible defendant could, at some point, become re- eligible to receive aid. However, even if defendant were personally prohibited from doing so, she could still receive benefits on behalf of dependents, in which case a search