People v. Seda CA1/5

Filed 6/15/15 P. v. Seda CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A142301 v. JUSTIN ADAM SEDA, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR623561) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant and appellant Justin Adam Seda (appellant) appeals following the trial court’s revocation of probation and imposition of a prison term after links to both prohibited videos and a photograph were found on appellant’s cell phone. We affirm. BACKGROUND In November 2012, appellant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)).1 On January 9, 2013, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for three years. The trial court’s January 9, 2013 minute order included various conditions of probation including, as pertinent here, “Do not view, purchase, possess or have access to any videotapes, films and/or magazines, floppy discs, CD’s or any medium which depict minor(s) or people representing themselves as minor(s) in sexual activity.” In March

1 All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

2014,2 the probation department requested summary revocation of appellant’s probation based on items found on appellant’s cell phone, including viewing history showing appellant had viewed videos of prepubescent children and of breastfeeding toddlers, as well as a bookmark to a photograph of a picture of naked boys lying face-down on a large rock. In May 2014, the trial court held a contested probation revocation hearing. Nancy Brown, appellant’s probation officer, testified that she and her partner conducted a probation search at appellant’s home in March, at which time she reviewed the contents of appellant’s cell phone. Brown viewed the video history in appellant’s “YouTube app” and discovered “a few breastfeeding tutorial videos” and a video of children, who appeared to be approximately five years old, playing in their swim suits at a water park. The trial court admitted, as People’s Exhibit 1, a collection of photographs of videos in appellant’s viewing history. Appellant told Brown “the videos were from a long time ago.” Brown did not know when they had last been viewed or whether the viewing history was associated with appellant’s YouTube account or his phone.3 A police detective testified about forensic analysis of appellant’s cell phone. Among other things, the phone contained a bookmark to a photograph maintained in an online photo sharing website; when the bookmark was clicked it opened a photograph of four young boys lying naked on a rock. The photograph itself was not saved on appellant’s phone. The testifying detective did not know whether appellant’s bookmarks were saved in an account accessible from multiple devices or only saved on his cell phone. The bookmark was created or the photograph was last accessed in 2013. The photograph was admitted into evidence as People’s Exhibit 2.