People v. Ailshire CA4/1

Filed 9/23/20 P. v. Ailshire CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D076631

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD282550)

JERRY A. AILSHIRE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed as modified and remanded with directions. Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Amanda Lloyd, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jerry A. Ailshire pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen.

Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted he personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)). Ailshire was granted probation for three years subject to various conditions. Ailshire appeals, challenging two parts of the probation order. First, he contends the court improperly imposed an electronic search condition in violation of People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) and In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 (Ricardo P.). Ailshire also contends the court denied him due process by imposing fines, fees, and assessments without a hearing on ability to pay the amounts imposed. We will agree with Ailshire that the court did not have a sufficient basis for imposing the electronic search condition. We will direct the court to strike that condition of probation. We will disagree with Ailshire’s contention regarding the fines, fees, and assessments imposed by the court. The issue was addressed by the court. The court reduced the amounts due down to a total of $954, reduced the payments to $35 per month, and ordered Ailshire to be promptly released to work furlough. As we will explain, the court’s response to the objection considered ability to pay and acted well within its discretion in setting the amounts due. STATEMENT OF FACTS This appeal arises from a guilty plea. The factual statement supporting the plea stated that Ailshire “unlawfully committed an assault [with] a deadly weapon against another and personally used the weapon in the commission.”