People v. Vasquez CA3

Filed 2/9/24 P. v. Vasquez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sutter) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098991

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF20-0003062) v.

JOSE VASQUEZ, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Condition No. 17 of defendant Jose Vasquez, Jr.’s, probation provided he was not to associate with females under the age of 18 years unless accompanied by an unrelated responsible adult (condition No. 17). Defendant’s probation officer learned defendant’s minor female cousins were coming to the house where defendant lived with his parents for a weekend visit. She cautioned defendant that he would violate his probation if he was at the residence when they visited. The next day, deputies found defendant at the residence, in the backyard in front of a tent, when the girls were also at the residence. The trial court found defendant violated condition No. 17 and revoked probation.

1

Defendant asserts there was insufficient evidence he violated condition No. 17 and that his probation officer impermissibly broadened the meaning of the term “not associate.” We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts of defendant’s underlying convictions are not relevant to any issue presented on this appeal and we do not summarize them here. Defendant pled no contest to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than him. He also pled no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a specified person and admitted the truth of an attached great bodily injury allegation. The trial court placed defendant on formal probation with 364 days in jail. Condition No. 17 of defendant’s probation stated: “Not associate with; FEMALES under the age of 18 years unless accompanied by an unrelated responsible adult.” Amy Depew, a senior probation officer, had an office visit with defendant on April 14, 2023. Defendant told Depew his two minor female cousins and their parents were coming to spend the weekend at the house he shared with his parents. Depew told defendant that, if he was at the residence when the two female minors were there, that would violate the terms of his probation. Depew also called defendant’s father and discussed these concerns. Depew told both defendant and his father that neither defendant’s girlfriend nor his aunt by marriage would be an appropriate and qualifying unrelated responsible adult. On cross-examination, Depew testified she advised that defendant could not have any contact with any minor females. Depew had the impression defendant intended to comply with her guidance. However, she knew defendant to have a history of dishonesty, so she requested a compliance visit by the Sutter County Sheriff’s Office for the next day. At approximately 3:25 p.m. on April 15, 2023, Deputy Sean Anub went to defendant’s residence with Deputy Ashlee Moseley. Defendant’s father told them defendant was in the backyard. The deputies went through the house, where they