People v. McCulloch CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077567 · 2021-03-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD281832
Trial judge: Polly H. Shamoon
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Patricia D. Benke (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Truc T. Do

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:12Z · confidence high

The trial court imposed a probation condition requiring the defendant to submit electronic devices to search, reasoning it was necessary to ensure compliance with other probation terms and prevent future criminality. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding the condition reasonable under the *Lent* standard as it was specifically related to preventing future criminality and ensuring compliance with prohibitions on contacting minors via computer.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a probation condition requiring the defendant to submit computers and recordable media to search at any time, with or without a warrant. “We conclude the electronics condition is reasonably related to defendant’s future criminality as it ensures compliance with the uncontested prohibitions on his possession of pornographic materials, and participation in computer chat rooms, or knowing contact with minors via computer.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the abuse of discretion standard and the Lent test. It found the condition satisfied the third prong of Lent (reasonably related to future criminality) by linking the search condition to the specific, non-criminal conduct prohibited by other probation terms (contacting minors via computer). The court rejected the argument that the condition was overly broad by noting the explicit exclusion of medical and financial records. The reasoning is supported by the cited authorities (Lent, Ricardo P., Cota) and the factual record provided in the opinion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 — Establishes the three-prong test for challenging probation conditions: (1) no relationship to the crime, (2) related to non-criminal conduct, and (3) not reasonably related to future criminality.
relied: In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 — Reaffirms the *Lent* standard and the requirement for a specific relationship between the condition and preventing future criminality.
relied: People v. Cota (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 786 — Clarifies that a specific, not merely abstract, relationship between the condition and preventing future criminality is required.
relied: People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114 — Establishes that trial courts have broad discretion to impose reasonable conditions of probation that foster rehabilitation and protect the community.
relied: People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717 — Establishes that the imposition of probation conditions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
relied: People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 — Allows a sentencing judge to consider a defendant's prior history and the entire factual background of the case, including dismissed charges, for purposes of probation and sentencing.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the *Lent* test to the specific facts, focusing on the third prong (future criminality) and the specific relationship to the other probation conditions. It effectively addresses the defendant's arguments regarding the scope of the search and the relevance of drug history.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted defendant's guilty plea to false imprisonment and child endangerment, suspended imposition of sentence, granted four years of formal probation with 365 days in custody, and imposed an electronics search condition (excluding medical and financial records) alongside conditions barring pornography, chat rooms, and computer contact with minors. On appeal defendant challenged only the electronics search condition under Lent and Ricardo P.; the Court of Appeal held the condition was reasonably related to future criminality because it enforces the unchallenged pornography and computer-contact conditions, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a probation condition requiring defendant to submit computers, recordable media and electronic devices to warrantless, suspicionless search (not extending to medical or financial records), challenged as unreasonable under Lent's third prong and In re Ricardo P. “We conclude the electronics condition is reasonably related to defendant’s future criminality as it ensures compliance with the uncontested prohibitions on his possession of pornographic materials, and participation in computer chat rooms, or knowing contact with minors via computer.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The court correctly framed the Lent test and reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a monitoring rationale tied to specific, unchallenged conditions restricting computer contact with minors is a plausible basis under Lent's third prong given defendant's sexual remarks to an 11-year-old and the Harvey-waived facts. However, the opinion cites Ricardo P. only as defendant's authority and never performs the proportionality analysis that case requires—weighing the substantial privacy burden of a full electronics search against the interests served—and the record described contains no evidence defendant used electronic devices in connection with any offense. The justification is somewhat circular (an electronics search condition justified by other electronics-related conditions that themselves have no stated record basis), and the court's only response to the privacy burden is the carve-out for medical and financial records. The result may be defensible, but the opinion does not show the work Ricardo P. demands, so I cannot confidently endorse or reject it.

Authorities

relied: People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 — A probation condition is invalid only if it (1) has no relationship to the crime, (2) relates to conduct not itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct not reasonably related to future criminality.
relied: In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 — Under Lent's third prong, an electronics search condition requires that the burden on the probationer's privacy be proportionate to the legitimate interests served; a generalized supervision rationale without record evidence connecting electronic device use to criminality is insufficient.
relied: People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114 — Trial courts have broad discretion to impose reasonable probation conditions that foster rehabilitation and protect public safety.
relied: People v. Cota (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 786 — More than an abstract or hypothetical relationship is required between a probation condition and preventing future criminality; a specific relationship must be shown.
relied: People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717 — Probation conditions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
relied: People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 — Absent a waiver, a sentencing court may not consider facts underlying dismissed counts; a Harvey waiver permits the court to consider the full factual background including dismissed charges.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion states the correct Lent framework and standard of review and reaches a defensible result by tying the electronics search to specific, unchallenged conditions restricting computer contact with minors and pornography possession. It does not, however, conduct the proportionality analysis Ricardo P. requires or explain how the record (which involves an in-person offense with no electronic component) supports the burden imposed, answering the privacy concern only by noting the medical/financial records carve-out.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 3/15/21 P. v. McCulloch 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, D077567

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD281832)

VERNON McCULLOCH, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed.

Matthew R. Garcia, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. BACKGROUND On May 20, 2019, 11-year-old A.G. waited alone for her mother in the staff parking lot at her elementary school. The parking lot was surrounded by fencing and gates that were 15 to 20 feet high. One of the gates remained open. As she waited, defendant Vernon McCulloch approached the dumpsters on the side of the parking lot. He was singing, humming and saying inappropriate things, like “fuck.” When defendant saw A.G. he started talking to her, again saying inappropriate things and calling her a “bitch.” He told her he wanted to play and they would be “playing with [her] pussy.” He simulated a humping motion. A.G. became frightened and called out for the school janitor. Defendant then found the padlock on the gate and locked A.G. inside. Cursing, he left while A.G. tried to find a way out of the parking lot. After a few minutes, her mother arrived and called the police. A.G. stated she was scared and felt uncomfortable and not safe. The San Diego County District Attorney filed an amended information charging defendant in count 1, with contacting a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense, in violation of Penal Code1 section 288.3, subdivision (a). He was also charged with false imprisonment by violence, menace fraud or deceit in count 2, in violation of sections 236 and 237, subdivision (a), in count 3 with child molestation in violation of section 647.6, subdivision (a)(1), and in count 4 with cruelty to a child by endangering her health in violation of section 273a, subdivision (b). Defendant pled guilty to counts 2 and 4. The remaining counts were dismissed. Defendant agreed to a waiver under People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, which allowed the sentencing judge to consider defendant’s prior history and the entire factual background of this case, including the dismissed charges, for purposes of probation, restitution, and imposing sentence.

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The court suspended imposition of the sentence, granted four years of formal probation and ordered that defendant serve 365 days in custody with credit for time served. Defendant’s formal probation included 1) submitting computers and recordable media, including electronic devices, to search at any time, with or without a warrant, and with or without reasonable cause, not extending to medical or financial records 2) not knowingly possessing pornographic material or knowingly being in places where pornographic materials were the main items for sale, and 3) not participating in computer chat rooms or otherwise knowingly contacting minors or persons defendant believed to be minors via computer. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is that the electronic search condition is improper under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent), and In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 (Ricardo P.). Trial courts have broad discretion to impose reasonable conditions of probation where they foster rehabilitation and protect the community. (§ 1203.1 subds. (a) and (i); People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120.) In order to invalidate a probation condition under Lent, the defendant must make three showings: 1) the condition has no relationship to the crime; 2) the condition is related to conduct that is not itself criminal; and 3) the condition is not reasonably related to his or her future criminality. (Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 486.) In examining the reasonableness of a probation condition more than a mere abstract or a hypothetical relationship between the condition and preventing future criminality is required. Rather, there must be a specific 3 relationship between the condition and preventing future criminality. (People v. Cota (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 786, 790 (Cota).) Here, the trial court concluded that while Lent’s first two prongs were not met, the electronics search fell within the third prong in that it was related to defendant’s future criminality. In this respect, the court concluded defendant was a danger to the public in general, and young children in particular, especially at schools. The court reasoned that the circumstances of the current offenses involving inappropriate and sexual remarks and gestures toward a minor, his extensive criminal behavior and history while under the influence of drugs and past violations of probation orders and failures to appear, a past offense at a different school, and five previous incidents involving contacting, harassing, or assaulting people, made the electronics condition reasonable. Courts of Appeal review the imposition of probation conditions for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 723.) We conclude the electronics condition is reasonably related to defendant’s future criminality as it ensures compliance with the uncontested prohibitions on his possession of pornographic materials, and participation in computer chat rooms, or knowing contact with minors via computer. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the court did not impose this condition because of defendant’s drug history. Moreover, we do not accept defendant’s argument that the condition serves as a gateway to other, private information. The trial court specifically stated the condition does not extend to medical and financial records. In light of our conclusions, we deem the electronic search condition reasonable.

4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Ricardo P. (In Re Ricardo P.) S230923 · 2019-08-15
People v. Appleton H041332 · 2016-03-15
People v. Carbajal S036146 · 1995-08-14
People v. Harvey Crim 21022 · 1979-11-27
People v. Lent Crim. 17984 · 1975-10-30