People v. Gomez CA6

Filed 12/6/23 P. v. Gomez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H050506 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2205787)

v.

EDEMIR GOMEZ,

Defendant and Appellant. Edemir Gomez pleaded no contest to felony infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, misdemeanor dissuading a victim from reporting a crime, and felony assault. The trial court granted a three-year term of probation, subject to various terms and conditions, including a warrantless search condition. Gomez argues on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing the search condition. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background The prosecution charged Gomez with eight counts: count 1—infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 237.5, subd. (a)1; a felony); counts 2 and 5—attempting to dissuade a victim from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); felonies); count 3—vandalism of $400 or more (§ 594, subd. (b)(1); a felony); count 4— forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(A); a felony); and counts 6, 7, and 8—inflicting battery on a cohabitant (§ 243, subd. (e)(1); misdemeanors).

1 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The prosecutor subsequently amended the complaint to add count 9—assault as to both victims (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); a felony), and it reduced to a misdemeanor one count of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 2, as amended to allege both victims). Gomez then pleaded no contest to count 1, felony inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant; count 2, misdemeanor dissuading a victim from reporting a crime; and count 9, felony assault. The trial court sentenced Gomez to 364 days in jail, suspended imposition of sentence, and granted a three-year term of probation, with various terms and conditions. The court imposed a condition, to which Gomez did not object, that “defendant shall not knowingly possess any item that under the law would be considered a deadly or dangerous weapon(s) during the period of Probation.” Over Gomez’s objection, the court imposed a condition requiring that “defendant shall submit his/her person, place of residence, vehicle and any other property under his/her control to search at any time with or without a warrant by any Peace Officer or any law enforcement agency.” With respect to the search condition, Gomez had filed a written objection in which he argued that its imposition was unlawful under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). He renewed the objection orally at the sentencing hearing, and the court initially declined to order the search condition. The prosecutor then told the court that it was the view of the probation department that the search condition was necessary to effectuate the no-weapons condition of Gomez’s probation. In response, the court stated that it had mistakenly thought this was a misdemeanor case, and that it agreed with the prosecutor. The court then imposed the search condition. Gomez filed a timely notice of appeal.