People v. Moore CA3

Filed 10/6/23 P. v. Moore CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098124

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21FE000045)

v.

BOBBY EUGENE MOORE,

Defendant and Appellant.

After defendant Bobby Eugene Moore pled no contest to possessing an assault weapon, the trial court imposed an electronics search condition as part of its grant of probation. Defendant now argues that this probation condition is unreasonable and unconstitutionally overbroad. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Police had been monitoring defendant’s social media accounts when they observed a post showing defendant holding a Norinco SKS assault rifle. The rifle was subsequently located during a search of defendant’s residence. Defendant was charged

1

with possession of an assault weapon, carrying a concealed firearm within a vehicle, and carrying a loaded firearm in public. It was further alleged that each of the offenses was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Defendant pled no contest to possession of an assault weapon. The trial court granted formal probation for two years and ordered defendant to serve 240 days in county jail. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel stated that defendant sought to serve his county jail time on a sheriff’s alternative program and to have his probation transferred to Las Vegas, Nevada, where defendant resides. The court initially responded that the 240- day sentence could not be transferred out of state, but defense counsel ultimately persuaded the court that it could be. The court ordered defendant to “[s]erve 240 days in the county jail. . . . I am going to order that you be allowed to serve this on a sheriff’s alternative program. And the [sic] that may be done in Clark County, Nevada.” The court also struck the probation condition that defendant could “not leave the State of California, at any time, without first securing permission from [defendant’s] probation officer.” An electronics search condition was imposed as part of defendant’s probation. That condition provides, in relevant part, that “[d]efendant shall submit his/her person, place, property, automobile, electronic storage devices, and any object under his/her control, including but not limited to cell phones and computers, to search and seizure by any law enforcement officer or probation officer, any time of the day or night, with or without a warrant, with or without his/her presence or further consent.” DISCUSSION Defendant contends that the imposed electronics search condition is unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403, fn. 6, and unconstitutionally overbroad. The People argue that defendant has forfeited his claims by failing to assert a timely objection below. We agree with the People. When a defendant fails to object in