Court Opinion

ID: 9411415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 19:04:28.913122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:06.607110
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/26/23 P. v. Bonilla CA4/1
                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

                  COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                       DIVISION ONE

                                              STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                  D080714

            Plaintiff and Respondent,

            v.                                                                (Super. Ct. No. SCD292495)

 MARTIN ZEPEDA BONILLA,

            Defendant and Appellant.

          APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Affirmed.
          Britton Donaldson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
          Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General,
A. Natasha Cortina and Arlyn Escalante, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.

          Martin Zepeda Bonilla appeals the order placing him on probation after
a jury found him guilty of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. He
contends a condition of probation requiring him to report contacts with law
enforcement to his probation officer is unconstitutionally vague and
overbroad. We previously rejected the same challenge to the same condition
in People v. Brand (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 861 (Brand). We reject the
challenge again and affirm the order.
                                BACKGROUND
      Bonilla swung a metal pole at his sister and niece. A jury found him
guilty of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245,
subd. (a)(1).) The trial court imposed and suspended execution of an
aggregate four-year prison term, and placed Bonilla on formal probation for
three years. One condition of probation requires that he: “Provide true
name, address, and date of birth if contacted by law enforcement. Report
contact or arrest in writing to the [probation officer] within 7 days. Include
the date of contact/arrest, charges, if any, and the name of the law
enforcement agency” (the report-contact condition).
                                 DISCUSSION
      Bonilla complains the report-contact condition is unconstitutionally
vague and overbroad on its face. He contends the condition is unclear as to
whether he must report only those contacts in which he is detained or
arrested on suspicion of a crime, or all contacts, including chance encounters
with police while going about activities of daily life (e.g., while shopping at a
grocery store or participating in a peaceful and lawful demonstration).
Bonilla further contends the condition is overbroad if it requires him to report
all contacts with law enforcement, even “neutral” contacts or minor traffic
infractions, because such a reporting requirement unduly restricts his
constitutional rights to freedom of association and travel. He contends People
v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188 (Relkin) “is controlling authority for [his]

                                        2
position that the report ‘contact’ with law enforcement condition is vague and
overbroad.” Bonilla asks us to rewrite the report-contact condition “only to
require reporting upon arrest or detention for a suspected misdemeanor or
felony,” or, alternatively, to direct the trial court to do so on remand.
      Bonilla’s facial challenge to the report-contact condition of probation as
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad presents a question of law we decide
de novo. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888; Brand, supra,
59 Cal.App.5th at p. 867.) We rejected such a challenge to the identical
condition in Brand, albeit in the context of mandatory supervision rather
than probation. That difference in context, however, does not affect our
analysis.
      We noted in Brand that the condition at issue here was “more specific”
than the condition requiring report of “ ‘ “any contacts with . . . any peace
officer” ’ ” that was held unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in Relkin,
supra, 6 Cal.App.5th 1188, the case on which Bonilla relies. (Brand, supra,
59 Cal.App.5th at p. 870.) We went on to explain: “Taking the first and
second sentences together, a reasonably objective person would conclude that
Brand is required to report only those contacts in which a law enforcement
officer requests identifying information from Brand. This meaning arises
because the requirement that Brand ‘[r]eport contact or arrest in writing to
the [probation officer] within 7 days’ directly follows the statement that
Brand must ‘[p]rovide true name, address, and date of birth if contacted by
law enforcement.’ When read together, these two sentences make clear to a
reasonable reader that the law enforcement contact that Brand must report
is any contact in which Brand is required to provide his name, address, and
date of birth to law enforcement. Further, because the last sentence of the
report-contact condition provides that Brand must ‘[i]nclude the date of

                                        3
contact/arrest, charges, if any, and the name of the law enforcement agency,’
a reasonable person would understand that Brand does not have to report
contact with a law enforcement officer that is not meaningful enough for the
officer to provide Brand with information about the relevant law enforcement
agency.” (Id. at pp. 870-871.)
      We concluded “the report-contact condition, when read in its entirety,
would indicate to a reasonable person that Brand is not required to report
casual, random interactions with law enforcement officers. Instead, the type
of law enforcement contacts that must be reported are those in which Brand
is questioned by law enforcement officers and is required to give identifying
information, such as when he has been a witness to a crime or is suspected of
possible involvement in a crime.” (Brand, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 871.)
      In his reply brief, Bonilla argues the interpretation we gave the report-
contact condition in Brand, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th 861, does not solve the
vagueness and overbreadth problems. He contends that “even if the reporting
requirement . . . is limited to contact calling for an exchange of information, it
could still require [him] to report insubstantial encounters,” such as a traffic
stop in which a law enforcement officer determines no violation occurred or
issues only a warning, or a consensual encounter in which an officer requests
identifying information. The appellant in Brand similarly argued that it was
unclear whether he had to report such “ ‘positive and neutral contacts with
law enforcement as he goes about his daily life’ ”; and that if he had to report
such “ ‘innocent and inconsequential’ ” contacts, the report-contact condition
was overbroad. (Id. at p. 869.) We rejected those contentions for the reasons
set forth above. (Id. at pp. 870-871.) We adhere to our analysis in Brand and
conclude here, as we did there, that the challenged report-contact condition is
not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. (Id. at p. 871.)

                                        4
                              DISPOSITION
     The order granting probation is affirmed.

                                                 IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                     5