People v. Banuelos CA4/1

Filed 4/14/23 P. v. Banuelos CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D079842

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCF004767) v.

JONATHAN BANUELOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Christopher J. Plourd, Judge. Affirmed; remanded with directions.

Justin Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Erica A. Swenson and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The People charged Jonathan Banuelos with inflicting corporal injury

on a girlfriend (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1), false imprisonment by violence (§ 236; count 2), and misdemeanor interference with a wireless communication device (§ 591.5; count 3). He pleaded no contest to infliction of corporal injury on a girlfriend and, in exchange, the People dismissed the remaining charges. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Banuelos on three years of formal probation on several terms and conditions, including that he be subject to warrantless searches, and that he “[n]ot own, possess, or purchase any firearms, ammunition and/or any other dangerous weapons.” It also ordered him to pay various fees and fines, including that he reimburse presentence investigation and probation supervision costs under section 1203.1b, subdivision (e). Banuelos contends: (1) the warrantless search condition must be stricken as invalid; and (2) under Assembly Bill No. 1869, the court’s order that he reimburse costs under section 1203.1b, subdivision (e) must be vacated. The People correctly concede the second argument has merit; accordingly, we will affirm the judgment, but remand with instructions set forth below.