People v. Maynard CA3

Filed 5/7/21 P. v. Maynard CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092175

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62162820)

v.

JACOB RYAN MAYNARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jacob Ryan Maynard appeals from a June 2020 order reinstating all prior terms and conditions of probation, claiming an electronic search condition imposed in 2019 is unconstitutional. We affirm, because we agree with the People that defendant cannot challenge the probation condition in this appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We do not discuss the underlying facts of defendant’s crime of conviction, as it is irrelevant to our resolution of this appeal. Pursuant to a negotiated disposition in May 2019, defendant pled no contest to one count of assault with a deadly weapon, and the trial court placed him on formal probation

1

for five years with various conditions, including that he obey all laws and “submit his/her person, place[,] property, automobile, electronic storage devices . . . to search and seizure by an [sic] law enforcement officer or probation officer, any time of the day or night, with or without a warrant . . . .” The trial court asked defendant if he accepted the terms and conditions of probation. Defendant replied, “Yes, sir,” and did not file a direct appeal challenging the general search condition. In May 2020, after a contested hearing, the trial court concluded defendant violated the “obey all laws” condition of probation, and revoked probation. Later, after the prosecution urged the trial court not to reinstate probation, but instead to sentence defendant to an aggravated term of incarceration for the assault, the trial court explained that it “would be willing to reinstate probation” if defendant were to waive some custody credits and accept the trial court’s “add[ing] drug, narcotic and alcohol testing by probation.” After conferring with defendant, counsel for defendant told the trial court that defendant “accept[ed] the modified terms of probation.” The trial court asked defendant if he had any questions before the hearing continued. Defendant said he did not have any questions “that [he] car[ed] to mention.” After more discussion, the trial court said it would “reinstate probation on all prior terms and conditions. We are adding terms and conditions of probation. They will include that you submit to drug, narcotic and alcohol testing . . . .” (RT 119) The trial court explained other aspects of new terms and conditions (RT 119-122), and then the following colloquy occurred between the trial court and defendant: “[The trial court]: So sir, will you accept those additional terms and conditions of probation as I’ve indicated them to you? “[Defendant]: Yes, Your Honor.