People v. Martinez CA4/1

Opinion

Filed 9/15/26 P. v. Martinez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086645, D086646

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD308352, SCD305894) v.

CARLOS MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Affirmed. Susan L. Ferguson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Michael T. Murphy, and Elana Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. The trial court placed defendant Carlos Martinez on formal probation in each of two underlying criminal proceedings from which Martinez has appealed. In one, Martinez pled guilty in an Orange County court to four theft-related counts. At sentencing, that court placed Martinez on probation, and his probation was subsequently transferred to San Diego County. He later violated the terms of his probation by committing an offense in a separate case that is not at issue in the appeal. After the San Diego court revoked his probation due to the violation, the trial court reinstated Martinez’s probation without substantively modifying the probation conditions the Orange County court had previously imposed. In the second case, the trial court in San Diego placed Martinez on formal probation after he pled guilty to a drug possession charge. In so doing, the court imposed three gang-related prohibitions among other probation conditions. Martinez’s appeals have been consolidated, and in briefing the consolidated appeals, Martinez raises a single challenge. In Martinez’s view, the gang-related probation conditions imposed on him in the second case are invalid and should be stricken. We disagree and therefore affirm the judgments. I. BACKGROUND A. Case No. SCD305894 On December 20, 2023, the Orange County District Attorney filed a complaint against Martinez, alleging that he committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1); organized retail theft (§ 490.4, subds. (a)(1), (b)(1); count 2); grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); count 3); petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a) count 4); and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a), count 5). On June 13, 2024, 2 Martinez pled guilty to counts 2 through 5. The superior court suspended imposition of sentence for two years and granted Martinez formal probation. On January 10, 2025, Martinez’s probation was transferred from Orange County to San Diego County and assigned a new case number, case No. SCD305894. Just under two months later, on March 4, 2025, the trial court revoked Martinez’s probation in case No. SCD305894 due to pending new charges in new case No. SCD306901.1 Although Martinez was referred to drug court, he was not accepted. There were discussions on the record as to whether he would be suitable for drug court, given his history of weapons- related prior convictions and gang associations. At one point, the People indicated that Martinez was not accepted into drug court because he “may have claimed that he has some affiliation with Lincoln Park,” but indicated to the judicial officer at that hearing that the sheriff’s office currently listed him as “inactive.” Martinez pled guilty in the new case, case No. SCD306901, and the trial court reduced that charge to a misdemeanor, per an indicated offer. On April 15, 2025, he was placed on formal probation in that case and reinstated on probation in case No. SCD305894. B. Case No. SCD308352 On June 13, 2025, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office filed a new complaint against Martinez in case No. SCD308352, alleging one count of possession of methamphetamine with two or more prior qualifying drug convictions pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 11395, subdivision (b)(1). In late June 2025, he pled guilty to this charge and admitted a prior 1 Case No. SCD306901 is not being challenged in this appeal.

3 conviction. Martinez also admitted at this time that he violated his probation in the case transferred from Orange County, case No. SCD305894. In the probation report submitted prior to Martinez’s sentencing in case No. SCD308352, the reporting officer indicated that during his probation interview Martinez shared various personal information. Included in this personal information was a section titled “Gang Affiliation,” under which the probation report noted: “The defendant has affiliated with the ‘Logan Heights 33rd Street’ gang. His moniker is ‘Shadow.’ ” The probation report recommended that the court deny probation and commit Martinez to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for a term of eight months on the drug possession offense. At sentencing for case No. SCD308352 on July 28, 2025, the trial court suspended imposition of Martinez’s sentence for two years and placed him on formal probation. The probation terms imposed included orders that Martinez not associate with known Logan Heights gang members, not display gang signs or gestures, and not wear, display or possess gang insignia, photographs, or similar items.2 C. Revisiting Case No. SCD305894 Also on July 28, 2025, the trial court sentenced Martinez in case No. SCD305894 after finding that he violated his probation based on his 2 Specifically, the court imposed the following gang-related conditions: “12b. Do not associate with any person who you know, or who a P.O. or other law enforcement officer informs you is a Logan Heights gang member, ‘Gang’ means a ‘criminal street gang’ as defined in Pen. Code 186.22(e) and (f) [¶] . . . [¶] “12e. Do not knowingly display any gang signs or gestures. [¶] . . . [¶] “12i. Do not knowingly wear, display, use, or possess any insignias, photographs, emblems, badges, buttons, caps, hats, jackets, shoes, flags, scarves bandanas, shirts, or other articles of clothing evidencing affiliation with / membership in the Logan Heights gang.” 4 guilty plea in case No. SCD308352. The court reinstated Martinez’s probation in case No. SCD305894 on the same conditions that had previously been imposed.3 D. Martinez’s appeals On August 20, 2025, Martinez filed timely notices of appeal from the court’s judgments in case No. SCD305894 and No. SCD308352. The appeals were assigned separate appellate case numbers (No. D086645 and No. D086646). On February 23, 2026, this court granted Martinez’s unopposed motion to consolidate the appellate matters. As a result, case Nos. D086645 and D086646 were consolidated and have proceeded under case No. D086645. II. DISCUSSION Martinez’s sole appellate contention is that the gang-related probation conditions imposed on him in case No. SCD308352 are invalid under the test set out in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) because, in his view, those probation terms have no relationship to his crime, relate to conduct that is not in itself criminal, and require and/or forbid conduct that is not reasonably related to his future criminality. Trial courts have broad discretion to set conditions of probation in order to “foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety pursuant to Penal Code, section 1203.1.” (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120; see Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (j).) Where the constitutionality of a probation condition is not being challenged, we review a trial court's sentence imposing 3 No gang-related probation conditions had been imposed when Martinez had been placed on probation in Orange County.

5 probation conditions for an abuse of discretion. (See In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1124 (Ricardo P.).) Generally, a condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it “ ‘(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.’ ” (Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 486.) The test requires that all three prongs be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. (Id. at p. 486, fn. 1; see also People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 68–69.) Because of this, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is held to be valid if it is reasonably related to preventing future criminality. (People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379– 380.) Implicitly acknowledging the gang-related restrictions have no relationship to the crime for which Martinez was being placed on probation and relate to conduct that is not itself criminal, the People focus their response to Martinez’s appellate challenge by arguing the gang conditions the court imposed are “ ‘legitimately related to’ defendant’s future criminality.” The People refer to information gleaned from the probation report to support their position, as “courts may properly base probation conditions upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense.” (Ricardo P., supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1122; see, e.g., People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 626 (Lopez) [relying on information in probation report for gang-related condition].) The People note that Martinez, aged 30 at the time of sentencing, has a lengthy history of both juvenile and adult criminal behavior. Some of his 6 early criminal history involved gang-related conduct. For example, when Martinez was 17, he vandalized numerous locations by tagging them with gang references. Additionally, and importantly, Martinez conceded to an interviewing probation officer that he “has affiliated with the ‘Logan Heights 33rd Street’ gang,” and that “[h]is moniker is ‘Shadow.’ ” Despite his criminal history and his own admission of having a gang moniker and an affiliation with the Logan Heights 33rd Street gang, Martinez argues on appeal that in the case originating in Orange County, the prosecution “acknowledged” he is not an active gang member. And further, he argues, his only gang-related offense from when he was 17 is too remote. Because of this, he asserts, the record is “insufficient to show [he has] a propensity for . . . committing gang related crimes.” In Martinez’s view, his situation is similar to the situation of the defendant in People v. Brandão (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 568 (Brandão). There, the appellate court concluded a no-contact condition was not reasonably related to that defendant’s risk of reoffense. (Id., at p. 574.) The underlying offense here and the one at issue in Brandão were similar, in that both involved drug possession and were not gang related. (See id. at p. 570.) But in Brandão, the probation report specifically stated the defendant in that case “had never been involved with any criminal street gangs.” (Ibid.) As Martinez concedes, he cannot say the same. Relying on this important distinction, the People argue that Martinez’s criminal history and gang ties instead make his situation more akin to that of the defendant in Lopez. In Lopez, the defendant pled guilty to a charge of unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle, an offense that was concededly not gang related. (Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at pp. 621, 623.) However, the probation report indicated that the defendant had a lengthy history of 7 juvenile and misdemeanor adult offenses and that he had also admitted his gang membership in the Norteño gang. (Id. at pp. 622, 626.) The Lopez court concluded that “[e]ven if the evidence was insufficient to show that the present crime was in some manner gang related,” the combined considerations of Lopez’s age, his gang affiliation, and his pattern of criminal behavior were sufficient to conclude “that Lopez's disassociation from gang- connected activities was an essential element of any probationary effort at rehabilitation because it would insulate him from a source of temptation to continue to pursue a criminal lifestyle.” (Id. at p. 626.) Martinez, nevertheless, attempts to further distinguish himself from the defendant in Lopez by asserting that defendant “was a member of the Norteño criminal street gang,” while “[h]ere, appellant is not a gang member, but instead h[i]s gang affiliation is from 13 years earlier when he was a juvenile.” In Martinez’s view, his previous gang-related offense is “too remote, attenuated, and disconnected from [his] current behaviors to warrant the challenged conditions.” But we are not wholly convinced by Martinez’s arguments on this point. First, we do not agree that this record demonstrates he has only a remote past gang affiliation. Second, even if he is not presently affiliated with the gang, both Lopez and Brandão indicate that a court may consider a defendant’s past gang affiliation in concluding that a prohibition on gang- related conduct is reasonably related to the defendant’s future criminality. As to the first point, we find it notable that Martinez does not cite to the record to support his assertion of the remoteness of his gang affiliation. Our review of the record reveals that it does not indicate when, or even whether, Martinez has fully ended his affiliation with the Logan Heights 33rd Street gang. The probation report indicates Martinez acknowledged to 8 the probation officer conducting his interview that he “has affiliated with”

that gang.4 His trial counsel argued that this particular phrasing—“has affiliated with”—indicates that his affiliation occurred only in the past. But in our view, this phrasing does not unambiguously indicate that Martinez has terminated or renounced his affiliation with the gang. That statement could be understood, instead, as indicating that Martinez’s gang affiliation has ebbed and flowed over time. And when that sentence from the probation report is considered in context with the next sentence, where the probation officer indicates Martinez admitted his “moniker is ‘Shadow,’ ” we are not convinced Martinez has demonstrated on appeal that the only reasonable factual conclusion from this record is that he has only a past affiliation with the Logan Heights 33rd Street gang. And the record in this case does not in any way indicate that his affiliation with the gang occurred solely when he was 17 years old, as he asserts in his appellate briefing. Martinez also relies heavily on a statement made by a prosecutor in Martinez’s other case (No. SCD305894) to the effect that the sheriff’s department does not currently list him as “active” in a gang. But this information does not lead us to conclude, as Martinez does, that his gang affiliation has ended. Rather, gang affiliation may be different from active membership in a gang. Nor does a current listing of “inactive” suggest that 4 In his reply brief, which we consider despite its late submission, Martinez argues that the probation report’s references to his affiliation with the Logan Heights 33rd Street gang may have been the result of “probation simply lift[ing] the information from the 2012 case where appellant used graffiti” to tag locations with gang references. But the probation report states that the information provided in the section that includes the gang information was “offered” by Martinez.

9 his affiliation concluded when he was a teenager. The prosecutor in the other case did not indicate how long Martinez had been identified by police as “inactive.” And the prosecutor’s full statement was that the sheriff’s department “at the moment has him [listed] as inactive” (italics added), signaling that law enforcement’s assessment was less than definitive and is subject to modification at any time. Given this, we do not think the prosecutor’s comments made in connection with explaining why he was deemed unsuitable for drug court in a different case required the court in this case to reach the conclusion that Martinez’s gang affiliations were in his distant past. Rather, on this record, the trial court could have been concerned that Martinez’s lengthy criminal history and his admission to a probation officer of having had affiliation with a gang indicated that Martinez’s ties to the gang were recent, and even possibly continuing in nature. But even if the record is interpreted as indicating only that Martinez has a past gang affiliation, a non-current gang affiliation may nevertheless support the imposition of gang-related probation conditions, as Martinez concedes. For example, Lopez indicates that a past gang affiliation can be sufficient to validate the imposition of gang probation conditions. (See Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 624 [“Whether the [probationer] was currently connected with a gang has not been critical.”].) The Brandão court also considered past affiliation, specifically noting not only that the defendant there was not presently affiliated or connected with a gang, but that he also had no “prior ties” to a criminal street gang or “prior gang affiliations.” (Brandão, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pp. 575, 576.) Thus, both Brandão and Lopez signal that past gang ties may support a determination that the imposition of gang-related probation conditions is reasonably related to 10 future criminality so as to render the conditions valid under Lent. Therefore, even if we assume Martinez is not currently affiliated with his former gang, his past gang affiliation was sufficient to permit the trial court here to conclude the gang-related probation conditions prohibit conduct that is reasonably related to his future criminality. (See Lopez, at p. 624.) In sum, in our view, Martinez’s history is more similar to that of the defendant in Lopez than the defendant in Brandão, given his past affiliation with a gang and possible continued association. As a result, we conclude, as the Lopez court did, that the gang-related probation conditions are valid under the Lent test. III. DISPOSITION The judgments are affirmed.

MCCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

KELETY, J.

BERMÚDEZ, J.