People v. Gonzalez CA5

Filed 9/21/23 P. v. Gonzalez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F084950 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F18907994) v.

RAYMUNDO GONZALEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of County. Samuel Dalesandro, Judge. Erica Gambale and J.M. Malik, 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, Michael A. Canzoneri, and Clifford E. Zall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and DeSantos, J.

In this appeal, defendant Raymundo Gonzalez challenges only a condition of probation imposed after he pled no contest to one felony count of insurance fraud. Specifically, when defendant was placed on probation by the trial court, one of the conditions of probation permitted searches of computers, and hand-held electronic and cellular devices (electronic devices). No objection was raised to this condition when it was announced. Defendant is now arguing he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On December 6, 2018, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with three counts of insurance fraud (Ins. Code, § 1871.4, subd. (a)(1), all felonies; counts 1– 3), and one count of perjury (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a), a felony; count 4). Defendant entered a plea of no contest on count 1 on May 18, 2022. Counts 2 through 4 were then dismissed under the plea agreement. On August 3, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to probation following the plea. A condition of probation, which was imposed without discussion or objection, was an electronic search condition requiring defendant to submit to a search of his electronic devices with or without a warrant. Defendant filed a notice of appeal on September 12, 2022. After his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied in the trial court, this court granted a motion brought by defendant on January 23, 2023, agreeing to construe the notice of appeal filed on September 12, 2022, to be an appeal from the judgment entered on August 3, 2022, and taken after a plea of guilty or no contest and based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that did not affect the validity of the plea. FACTUAL SUMMARY The facts are taken from the probation officer’s report filed on August 3, 2022. In March 2015, the People received notice of a possible fraudulent claim submitted on behalf of defendant. In the claim, defendant alleged he was injured on September 5, 2013, after pulling irrigation lines when the tire of a tractor hit him on the right foot,