Filed 1/21/20 P. v. Sandoval CA6

Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRAULIO CORTEZ SANDOVAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

H041939

(Santa Clara County

Super. Ct. No. C1481874)

In 2015, defendant Braulio Cortez Sandoval was placed on probation for three years after he pleaded no contest to active participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)), receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d), and two counts of driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and admitted two gang enhancement allegations (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)). On appeal, he challenged five of the standard “GANG” probation conditions imposed by the trial court. He claimed that the electronics search and passwords conditions were unreasonable and unconstitutionally overbroad, that the gang clothing and gang area conditions were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the court proceedings condition was unreasonable and violated his First Amendment rights.

In 2017, we filed an opinion rejecting his challenges and affirming the probation order. The California Supreme Court then granted review and held this case pending its decision in In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 (Ricardo P.), which the California Supreme Court decided in August 2019. In October 2019, the California Supreme Court transferred this case back to this court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the case in light of Ricardo P. Since defendant’s probation expired in 2018 and his only contentions on appeal concerned his probation conditions, this appeal is now moot. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120, fn. 5.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

_______________________________

Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________________

Elia, Acting P. J.

_____________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

People v. Sandoval

H041939