In re Francisco A. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083563 · 2025-04-30 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. JCM244080
Trial judge: Tilisha Martin
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Michele M. Castillo (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Truc T. Do

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:48Z · confidence high

The trial court imposed a probation condition requiring the minor to submit electronic devices to search, finding a nexus to the gang-related murder. The Court of Appeal affirmed, ruling that the appellant forfeited his as-applied constitutional challenge by failing to object in the trial court and that his facial challenge argument was legally insufficient.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of electronic device search probation condition “As one of the probation conditions, the court imposed—without objection—a Fourth Amendment waiver “extending” to Francisco’s “electronic devices.””	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875 — As-applied challenges to probation conditions are forfeited if not raised in the trial court, whereas facial challenges may be raised for the first time on appeal.
relied: People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228 — Challenges to probation conditions ordinarily must be raised in the trial court to avoid forfeiture on appeal.
relied: In re Ricardo P. (2022) 7 Cal.5th 1113 — Electronic search conditions are not categorically invalid and may have valid applications in some cases.
relied: People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934 — A facial challenge asserts a condition cannot have any valid application without relying on facts in the sentencing record; arguments requiring review of the record are as-applied challenges.
relied: In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129 — Constitutional challenges to probation conditions are reviewed de novo.

The appellate opinion: sound — sound

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The juvenile court sustained a petition against Francisco A. for murder, firearm and ammunition possession, and battery on a peace officer, committed him to a youth treatment facility, and imposed without objection a Fourth Amendment waiver extending to his electronic devices, finding a nexus in his post-shooting phone call to a fellow gang member. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that Francisco's overbreadth challenge, though labeled facial, was actually an as-applied challenge that he forfeited by not objecting below, and it affirmed the condition.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a probation condition requiring Francisco to submit his electronic devices to search (Fourth Amendment waiver extending to electronic devices), challenged on appeal as constitutionally overbroad “But that argument does not present a true facial challenge because it requires us to review the record to determine if the condition is overbroad as applied to him.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court correctly stated the Welch/Sheena K. framework: as-applied challenges to probation conditions are forfeited absent objection, while pure facial challenges may be raised first on appeal. Francisco conceded in reply that electronic search conditions are not overbroad per se and argued only that this condition should be narrowed to gang- and weapon-related data, which necessarily depends on the facts of his case; under Patton that is an as-applied claim. In re Ricardo P. confirms electronic search conditions can be valid in some cases, so the condition cannot be said to have no valid application. The court did not discuss its discretion under Sheena K. to reach a forfeited claim, nor did it quote the condition's actual wording, but the forfeiture conclusion is defensible on the opinion's own terms.

Authorities

relied: In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875 — A facial constitutional challenge to a probation condition presenting a pure question of law may be raised for the first time on appeal, but an as-applied challenge requiring review of the sentencing record is forfeited if not raised in the trial court.
relied: People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228 — Challenges to the reasonableness of probation conditions must ordinarily be raised in the trial court or they are forfeited on appeal.
relied: People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934 — A true facial challenge asserts the condition cannot have any valid application without relying on facts in the sentencing record; a claim that a condition is too broad for the particular defendant is an as-applied challenge subject to forfeiture.
relied: In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 — Electronic search probation conditions are not categorically invalid and may be valid where the record supports a sufficient connection between the condition and the probationer's circumstances.
relied: In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129 — Constitutional challenges to probation conditions are reviewed de novo.
relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Appellate courts may resolve straightforward matters by memorandum opinion.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion applies the correct forfeiture framework from Welch, Sheena K., and Patton and reasonably characterizes a challenge seeking to narrow the condition to gang- and weapon-related data as an as-applied claim, particularly given Francisco's concession that electronic search conditions are not overbroad per se. It does not, however, address the appellate court's acknowledged discretion to reach a forfeited claim, does not quote the condition's exact wording, and does not engage with the body of published decisions that have narrowed broadly worded electronic search conditions, leaving the analysis thin though defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/30/25 In re Francisco A. 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

In re FRANCISCO A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D083563 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM244080) v. FRANCISCO A., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Tilisha Martin, Judge. Affirmed. Thien Huong Tran, 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 Liz Olukoya, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Francisco A. challenges the constitutionality of a probation condition that requires him to submit his electronic devices to a search. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we affirm. I. Francisco, a gang member, shot and killed Damien Estrada, a rival gang member. After shooting Estrada, Francisco called a member of his gang to pick him up. The fellow gang member drove Francisco to his house. The juvenile court found Francisco, a minor, in violation of possession of a concealable firearm (Pen. Code, § 29610; count 1), possession of live ammunition (§ 29650; count 2), battery on a peace officer (§ 243(b); count 3), and murder (§ 187(a); count 4), and found true a gun enhancement (§ 12022.53(d)). The court declared Francisco a ward of the state and sentenced him to seven years in a youth treatment facility, with a maximum term of confinement of one year and eight months plus 50 years to life. As one of the probation conditions, the court imposed—without objection—a Fourth Amendment waiver “extending” to Francisco’s “electronic devices.” In imposing this condition, the court found a “nexus” based on Francisco’s “call for assistance once the incident occurred where [Estrada’s] life was lost.” II. Francisco claims the electronic search condition is facially, unconstitutionally overbroad. The People counter Francisco’s claim is an as-applied challenge he forfeited by failing to object below. We agree with the People. We review this constitutional challenge de novo. (In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143.)

2 Challenges to probation conditions ordinarily must be raised in the trial court to avoid forfeiture on appeal. (People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234-235.) An as-applied challenge, which depends on the condition’s constitutionality as applied to the probationer, is forfeited unless previously raised. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889.) But a facial challenge, which presents a pure question of law, can be raised for the first time on appeal. (Id. at pp. 885, 889.) In a facial challenge, “[t]he claim is that a condition cannot have any valid application, without relying on any facts in the sentencing record.” (People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 946.) Here, Francisco asserts an as-applied challenge, yet by not objecting in the trial court, he did not preserve it for appeal. Francisco argues the electronic search condition “is facially overbroad” and should be narrowed to sources of electronic information reasonably likely to yield evidence of criminal activity or probation noncompliance. The facial challenge label Francisco applies to avoid forfeiture, however, does not stand up to scrutiny. Electronic search conditions are not categorically invalid and may have valid applications in some cases. (In re Ricardo P., 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1128-1129.) Francisco admits as much in his reply when conceding the electronic search is not “facially overbroad per se.” Rather, Francisco’s position “is that the wording of the electronics search condition here is ‘too broad to survive scrutiny’” because it is not limited to electronic data of gang-related activity or weapon possession. (Italics added.) But that argument does not present a true facial challenge because it requires us to review the record to determine if the condition is overbroad as applied to him. (Patton, 41 Cal.App.5th at pp. 946-947.) By not objecting below, Francisco forfeited this as-applied challenge. (Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th at p. 889.) Accordingly, we affirm the probation condition.

3 III. We affirm the juvenile court’s imposed electronic search condition.

CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Ricardo P. (In Re Ricardo P.) S230923 · 2019-08-15
People v. Shaun R. H035112 · 2010-09-29
People v. Garcia F034831 · 2002-04-17
People v. Welch No. S025387 · 1993-05-27