Opinion
A154149
10-16-2018
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 201635312-07)
The minor, now 17-year-old G.C., appeals from an order based on her admission to a violation of probation, redeclaring wardship, and returning her to probation with custody to remain with her parents subject to numerous conditions, to two of which she objected at the disposition hearing. Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this to court make an independent review of the record, and has advised G.C. of her right to file a supplemental brief, which she has not done. Having made an independent review of the record, we shall affirm the juvenile court's order.
G.C. became a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in 2016 for having committed petty theft. In April 2018 she admitted having violated the terms of her probation by failing to comply with her curfew and having left the family home without permission. On one occasion she defied her mother's orders to remain home and visited a friend, after which she tested positive for cocaine use, THC and methamphetamine.
G.C., represented by counsel and advised of her rights, admitted the probation violations. Of the 22 conditions the court then imposed on the terms of her continued probation, her attorney objected to two of those conditions. G.C. objected to the order that she have no contact outside of school with the friend she had visited in disregard of her mother's orders, with the proviso added by the court that she "may return to court in a month to modify." Given the circumstances of her violation (in addition to the fact that the friend was also under a similar order imposed by the juvenile court), this condition undoubtedly was permissible under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481. The condition clearly has a "relationship" to the probation violation and was "reasonably related" to the objective of avoiding future violations. (Id. at p. 486.)
G.C. also objected to the proposed condition that she submit all electronic devices under her control to search and seizure, which the court also modified to limit the condition "to searching for communications related to drugs or criminal activity." While G.C.'s attorney may have been correct that the limitation is not "meaningful, because how are they going know whether it's related to drugs or criminal activity until they've read it all," the condition nonetheless does not violate the Lent criteria. The record contains evidence that G.C. made use of her cell phone to circumvent her mother's restrictions and, according to the detention report, "a search of the minor's phone revealed videos and pictures of recent drug and alcohol use."
We are satisfied that in all respects the court's order was a proper exercise of its discretion, and that there is no reason for further briefing.
The order is affirmed.
Pollak, J. We concur: Siggins, P.J.
Jenkins, J.