Filed 7/27/17 P. v. Dosio 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SILAS DOSIO,

Defendant and Appellant.
D070811



(Super. Ct. No. SCD265248)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F. Link, Judge. Affirmed.
Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Silas Dosio pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subd. (b)). The court placed Dosio on probation subject to various terms and conditions. One of the conditions prohibits Dosio from associating with minors without an approved adult being present.
Dosio appeals contending the probation condition is unconstitutional as an overbroad limitation on his right of association. We will find the probation condition appropriate for the supervision of Dosio and find that it is not overbroad.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In his guilty plea, Dosio admitted he failed to register as a sex offender as required by law and that he is a person who is required to register.
DISCUSSION
Dosio contends the limitation on his ability to associate with minors is overbroad since he poses no threat to minors. At the sentencing hearing defense counsel objected to the condition on the basis of "no nexus." There was no elaboration of the terse objection and the issue was not discussed further by the court or counsel. The People contend the objection raised here was forfeited by the failure to specifically object on the grounds the condition is overbroad. We will find the constitutional issue has been forfeited. Out of an abundance of caution we will discuss the merits of the contention and find no error in imposing the challenged condition.
A. Background
The original sex crime committed by Dosio in 1999, was sodomy of a 17-year-old female, committed while Dosio was a juvenile. The female reported that Dosio had raped and sodomized her. The juvenile court made a true finding on the sodomy allegation. As a result, Dosio was required to register as a sex offender for life. The probation report indicates Dosio had been arrested several times for failure to update his registration. At the time of the current offense Dosio was homeless and was living in the Seaport Village area of San Diego.
B. Legal Principles
Trial courts have broad discretion in fashioning probation conditions that will assist in supervision of probationers to prevent recidivism and promote rehabilitation as well as provide protection for the public. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120; People v. Peck (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 351, 362.) Such conditions may restrict otherwise lawful activity, including association if reasonably required to promote the legitimate needs of probation supervision. (People v. Robinson (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 816, 818.)
In People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent), the court explained that a probation condition "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." (Id. at p. 486.)
Ordinarily failure to object to a condition of probation forfeits the issue on appeal. (People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234-235.) It is not sufficient to make a generalized "objection," and still preserve a constitutional claim for appeal. (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 424.) In cases where there is a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a condition, failure to object will not forfeit the issue for review. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 885.)
C. Analysis
Probation condition 10(k) requires that Dosio "not knowingly associate with minors, nor be in places where you know, or your P.O. or other law enforcement informs you, that minors congregate, unless with an adult approved by the P.O."
First, we observe the language of the condition is not vague or overbroad on its face. It requires knowledge and provides a mechanism for association by identifying an approved adult. In In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th 875, the condition did not include a knowledge element. Thus, the court could determine the constitutional defect without reference to the record. The challenge in this case is essentially that the condition is overbroad as "applied to Dosio," since he does not pose a threat to minors. Indeed, the objection was "nexus," which would implicate a Lent analysis of validity, and not a constitutional challenge to the condition. Hence, we are satisfied the constitutional challenge has been forfeited.
Implicit in the objection is that the condition is invalid under Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d 481. The current offense was failure to register, not the original sex crime committed some years before the current offense. Thus, it is not directly connected to the current conviction. Free association is considered a valuable right and is not, in itself unlawful. Which brings us to the third prong of Lent, does the condition limit conduct that could be related to future criminality? We answer that question yes.
Dosio committed a violent sex crime on a minor, albeit some years before. We presume one of the reasons for registration of sex offenders is to help prevent reoffending, or to aid in locating those who do offend. Here, Dosio has demonstrated registration issues. He has exhibited some psychological problems and struggles with housing and employment, all of which had him living on the streets where tourists frequently visit with children. While some courts may not have imposed the challenged condition on these facts, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion or that the condition is invalid as a matter of law.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:




BENKE, Acting P. J.




NARES, J.