People v. Frankel CA3

Filed 10/4/16 P. v. Frankel CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C080650

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM043388)

v.

SHANE AUGUST FRANKEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Shane August Frankel pleaded guilty to threatening his girlfriend and was placed on probation, including a condition requiring him to make his data storage devices available for inspection. Defendant challenges this electronic search condition, claiming it is overbroad and unreasonable. We shall affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 3, 2015, defendant and Lindsay Dunlap had been in a romantic relationship for one month; at the time of the incident, they had been living together for two days in the backyard of defendant’s aunt’s home. Defendant was “possessive” and grew angry every time Dunlap mentioned going anywhere without him. Early that morning, Dunlap told defendant she wanted to leave. Defendant grew angry, pinned her to the ground, and repeatedly told her she was not leaving. He then grabbed a knife and held it to her head, telling her he was going to “do her” and then “do himself.” Dunlap feared for her life, believing defendant was going to kill her. Defendant grabbed Dunlap by the neck with both of his hands, lifted her off the ground, and pinned her against the backyard fence with her feet dangling off the ground. Dunlap could not breathe and eventually lost consciousness. Dunlap woke up to find defendant holding her to the ground and raising his fist as though he were going to punch her. Defendant’s aunt witnessed the incident and, over defendant’s objections, called 911. Defendant told the police he and Dunlap were methamphetamine users and “bicker[ed]” with each other. He denied there was any physical altercation and claimed Dunlap was threatening him with the knife. Defendant was charged with injuring a cohabitant, with an enhancement for infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (e)— count 1),1 and felony making criminal threats against Dunlap (§ 422, subd. (a) — count 2). Defendant pleaded guilty to count 2. Per the parties’ agreement, count 1 and the enhancement were dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.