People v. Vargas CA5

Filed 6/9/22 P. v. Vargas CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F083072 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF016126B) v.

ALFONSO VARGAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Jose R. Benavides, Judge. Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Michael A. Canzoneri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

In this appeal, defendant Alfonso Vargas challenges the constitutional validity of a condition to his probation. Following a review of the record, including the allegations leading to defendant’s plea agreement, we find there was no error in the wording of the probation condition challenged here. We affirm the judgment below. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY This summary will focus on the procedural facts, and those facts defendant admitted when entering a plea of no contest. On May 12, 2021, defendant was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of providing a firearm to another person (§ 27500, subd. (a)). On June 17, 2021, the complaint was amended to add a count charging defendant with a violation of section 25850, subdivision (c)(6), carrying a loaded firearm that was not registered to him. Defendant then entered into a plea agreement that would result in his pleading no contest to this new charge designated as count 3. Pursuant to the plea agreement, counts 1 and 2 were dismissed. As part of the plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to possessing a loaded firearm that was not registered to him. On July 19, 2021, defendant was sentenced under the terms of the plea agreement. Defendant’s attorney raised an objection to two conditions of probation. The condition at issue in this appeal stated defendant shall “not have any weapons of any description in his possession during his period of probation.” Counsel for defendant asked that the word “illegal” be added into the description of the type of weapons defendant could not possess during his probation. Following some discussion about the meaning of that condition and the potential risks imposed, the court left the wording of the condition intact. Ultimately, counts 1 and 2 were dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to probation for count 3.