People v. Harris CA3

California Court of Appeal Nov 13, 2020 No. C088730Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the electronics search condition by failing to object at sentencing and that the imposition of mandatory fines and fees on an indigent defendant does not violate due process.

Issues

Whether the electronics search probation condition is facially overbroad.
Whether the trial court erred in imposing mandatory fines and fees on an indigent defendant without an ability-to-pay hearing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Electronics search conditions are not categorically invalid.”

“Because there could be circumstances in which such a condition was appropriate, we reject any claim that Probation Condition 65 is facially overbroad.”

“The imposition of fines and fees in this case does not compromise defendant’s constitutional right of access to the courts nor will it result in any additional incarceration”

Filed 11/13/20 P. v. Harris CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C088730

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17CF02288)

CLARENCE EDWARD HARRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Clarence Edward Harris pleaded no contest to possession of a controlled substance with a firearm. On appeal, he challenges the electronics search term imposed for probation, contending the condition is facially overbroad. He also asserts court-imposed fines and fees should be stricken because he has no ability to pay them, relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). We affirm. BACKGROUND Narcotics investigators searched defendant, his vehicle, and a passenger during a traffic stop while defendant was on probation. The investigators found heroin,

counterfeit and real cash, pills, a firearm, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia. Investigators also found several cell phones which were later shown to have text messages indicative of drug sales. Defendant was charged with four felony counts: concealed firearm in a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)(3)), possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), sale/transportation/offering to sell a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), and possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)). Defendant pleaded no contest to possession with a firearm and the prosecution dismissed the three remaining counts. At sentencing, the court suspended imposition of sentence and granted three years’ probation. Under special conditions of probation No. 65 (Probation Condition 65), defendant provided consent for any law enforcement agency to seize and examine electronic data stored in devices owned, operated, or controlled by defendant.1 The court imposed mandatory fines and fees: a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $30 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8). It also imposed probation supervision fees of $164 per month for the three-year probation term. But it found defendant had no ability to pay the

People v. Harris CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C088730

CLARENCE EDWARD HARRIS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief