People v. Ibarra CA3

Filed 5/4/21 P. v. Ibarra CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C085773

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17F2306)

v.

CARLOS WILLIAM IBARRA,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a jury found defendant, Carlos William Ibarra, guilty of false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236),1 domestic violence (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), and making criminal threats (§ 422), the trial court placed him on probation with various conditions, including that he submit to warrantless searches of electronic devices in order to enforce compliance with a stay-away order.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On appeal, defendant challenges the electronics search condition, contending it is unconstitutionally overbroad. He further contends the condition requiring him to provide passwords to access the electronic storage devices violates the Fifth Amendment. We conclude defendant forfeited his claim of overbreadth and his claim regarding the Fifth Amendment lacks merit. In supplemental briefing, defendant avers the fines and fees imposed by the trial court must be stayed pending a hearing on his ability to pay those fees. We disagree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND A jury found defendant guilty of false imprisonment (§ 236), domestic violence (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), and making criminal threats (§ 422). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years’ probation, including an electronics search condition and a no-contact order. The proposed electronics search condition reads as follows: “That [defendant] submit his person, property, vehicle and residence to warrantless search at any time, with or without probable cause, by any peace officer or probation officer and that he provide any password or combination necessary to access any electronic device or service during the warrantless search process for enforcement of stay away order only. . . .” Defendant made no objection to the probation condition. The court ordered defendant to pay numerous fines and fees, including a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and a matching $300 probation revocation fine, which the court stayed pending successful completion of probation (§ 1202.44). The court also imposed an aggregate fine of $780, which included (among other fines and fees) a base fine (§ 672), a penalty assessment (§ 1464, subd. (a)), a construction fund fee (Gov. Code, § 70372, subd. (a)(1)), the court surcharge (§ 1465.7), and a conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).