People v. Ramirez CA4/2

── People v. Ramirez CA4/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Ramirez CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E084734 v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB23002779) JESUS MICHAEL RAMIREZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed with directions. Dan E. Chambers, 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, Daniel Rogers and Vincent P. LaPietra, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  Defendant and appellant Jesus Michael Ramirez was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was placed on two years formal probation. One of the conditions of his probation was that he was to submit to, at any time, the search and seizure of electronic devices that he was the actual possessor of. Defendant claims the electronic-device-search probation condition (sometimes, the probation condition) is unreasonable and should be stricken because it is unrelated to either the facts of his conviction or his risk of future criminality. He further claims the probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad, as applied, as it imposes limits on his privacy rights. He additionally argues that defense counsel’s failure to object to the probation condition in the trial court resulted in him receiving ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). He finally contends that his presentence custody credits were incorrectly calculated and must be corrected. We affirm the judgment but remand for the limited purpose of recalculating defendant’s presentence custody credits. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant was convicted by a San Bernardino County jury of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)).1 On August 16, 2024, the trial court imposed supervised formal probation for a period of two years. One of the terms was “Submit to search and seizure (electronic device) by a government entity of any electronic device that you are an authorized possessor of pursuant to PC 1546.1 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 (c)(10).” Defendant was to serve 365 days in county jail. He was awarded actual custody credit of 85 days and 85 days of conduct credit pursuant to section 4019 for a total of 170 days. Defendant filed his notice of appeal on September 30, 2024. B. FACTUAL HISTORY On August 17, 2023, at approximately 12:24 a.m., San Bernardino Police Officer Jordan Scoubart was working patrol in the San Bernardino area. He was in a marked patrol vehicle and wearing a police uniform. He went to the area of North Pico Avenue and West 6th Street to respond to a call regarding a fight and shots being fired. It was rep