People v. Bonilla CA4/1

Filed 7/26/23 P. v. Bonilla CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D080714

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD292495)

MARTIN ZEPEDA BONILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Affirmed. Britton Donaldson, 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, A. Natasha Cortina and Arlyn Escalante, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Martin Zepeda Bonilla appeals the order placing him on probation after a jury found him guilty of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. He

contends a condition of probation requiring him to report contacts with law enforcement to his probation officer is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We previously rejected the same challenge to the same condition in People v. Brand (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 861 (Brand). We reject the challenge again and affirm the order. BACKGROUND Bonilla swung a metal pole at his sister and niece. A jury found him guilty of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court imposed and suspended execution of an aggregate four-year prison term, and placed Bonilla on formal probation for three years. One condition of probation requires that he: “Provide true name, address, and date of birth if contacted by law enforcement. Report contact or arrest in writing to the [probation officer] within 7 days. Include the date of contact/arrest, charges, if any, and the name of the law enforcement agency” (the report-contact condition). DISCUSSION Bonilla complains the report-contact condition is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face. He contends the condition is unclear as to whether he must report only those contacts in which he is detained or arrested on suspicion of a crime, or all contacts, including chance encounters with police while going about activities of daily life (e.g., while shopping at a grocery store or participating in a peaceful and lawful demonstration). Bonilla further contends the condition is overbroad if it requires him to report all contacts with law enforcement, even “neutral” contacts or minor traffic infractions, because such a reporting requirement unduly restricts his constitutional rights to freedom of association and travel. He contends People v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188 (Relkin) “is controlling authority for [his]