People v. Bragg CA3

Filed 10/11/23 P. v. Bragg CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098090

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR-003093)

v.

JORDAN RAYMOND BRAGG,

Defendant and Appellant.

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Division of Adult Parole Operations (the Division), filed a petition to revoke defendant Jordan Raymond Bragg’s parole alleging he violated special condition No. 31 of his parole, which addressed access to pornographic materials. The trial court overruled defendant’s demurrer, denied his motion to dismiss the petition on vagueness grounds, found him in violation of his parole, and remanded him to the custody of CDCR and the Board of Parole Hearings.

1

On appeal, defendant asserts the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to dismiss the petition because special condition No. 31 is unconstitutionally vague, and (2) overruling his demurrer. The People concede special condition No. 31 is unconstitutionally vague and agree the order revoking defendant’s parole should be reversed. We also agree. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. In light of our determination, we need not address defendant’s second contention concerning his demurrer. BACKGROUND In 2013, defendant was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child. (Pen. Code, § 288.5.) The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of six years in prison. Defendant was released to parole supervision in 2018 for a parole period of 20 years six months. On December 23, 2022, the Division filed a petition to revoke defendant’s parole. The Division alleged defendant violated special condition No. 31. That condition read: “You shall not view, possess, or have access to any sexually oriented or sexually stimulating objects, articles, magazines and/or devices, or pornographic material in any format, including electronic communication devices (e.g., movies, photographs, drawings, literature, websites, texts, etc.).” According to the Division, on December 20, 2022, defendant met with his parole agent. Defendant’s parole agent searched defendant’s cell phone and found a “search history of various sexual images and materials depicting sex and nudity.” The agent also found photographs from a chat between defendant and a woman that included nude photographs of defendant. Defendant was arrested and transported to jail. Defendant filed a demurrer based on grounds we need not detail here. The trial court overruled the demurrer. Defendant then filed a brief asserting special condition No. 31 was unconstitutionally vague and moving for the petition to be dismissed. The trial court