From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Joshua R.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Apr 30, 2018
F076212 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018)

Opinion

F076212

04-30-2018

In re JOSHUA R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSHUA R., Defendant and Appellant.

Karriem Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen, and Christina Hitomi Simpson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Kern Super. Ct. No. JW137511-00)

OPINION

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Lorna H. Brumfield, Judge. Karriem Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen, and Christina Hitomi Simpson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

-ooOoo-

BACKGROUND

In a wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), the People alleged minor Joshua R., committed one count of misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594).

At the jurisdictional hearing on July 27, 2017, the court found the misdemeanor vandalism count true. At the dispositional hearing on August 18, 2017, the court adjudged Joshua R. a ward of the court, granted probation, and released him to his father. One of the conditions of Joshua R.'s probation was that he could not leave Kern County without first obtaining consent of his probation officer.

FACTS

Circumstances of Offense

On May 13, 2017, Joshua R. got into an argument with his grandmother in the backyard of her home. A witness told law enforcement that Joshua R. forced his way into the garage, later exited the front of the residence, and punched a window. When law enforcement arrived, Joshua R. admitted he had broken the window.

The witness later denied observing these two events.

Grandmother's Relocation

A few days before the jurisdictional hearing, the People and the hearing officer informed the court that the victim - Joshua R.'s grandmother and legal guardian - had moved out of state. The grandmother told probation that she "wanted to rescind guardianship of the minor due to his behavior."

In their appellate brief, the People cite certain facts like these from the probation report:

"[A]lthough Penal Code section 1203.05 limits who may inspect or copy probation reports, much of the material contained in such reports - such as the factual summary of the offense(s); the evaluations, analyses, calculations, and recommendations of the probation officer; and other nonpersonal information - is not considered confidential under that statute and is routinely discussed in openly filed appellate briefs...." (Advisory Com. Com., California Rules of Court, rule 8.47.)

DISCUSSION

Joshua R.'s sole contention on appeal is that the probation condition prohibiting him from traveling out of the county without the permission of his probation officer is "unconstitutionally overbroad and restrains his liberty."

The People observe Joshua R. forfeited this contention by failing to object below. In order to forestall a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we will address the claim nonetheless.

Judges have broad discretion in establishing the conditions of probation in juvenile cases. (In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 940 (Antonio R.).) A probation condition is valid "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 ....' [Citation.]" (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, fn. omitted (Lent), superseded by statute on another point as noted in People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403, fn. 6.) "This test is conjunctive - all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. [Citations.]" (People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379.)

We conclude the requirement Joshua R. obtain permission before traveling outside of Kern County bears a relationship to his crime, and the first prong of Lent is not satisfied. J.R.'s grandmother moved out of the county at some point after the events of May 13, 2017. She did not want to maintain custody of Joshua R. because of his behavior. Given that Joshua R.'s crime involved a confrontation with his grandmother, and given that she subsequently moved out of the county because of Joshua R.'s behavior, the travel condition is reasonably related to the crime. As the People note, the condition will ensure the probation officer can "notify the victims if needed."

Joshua R. responds that nothing in the record indicates he attempted to contact his grandmother since the incident. But we are aware of no authority holding that such a showing is required before imposing the type of travel condition imposed here. --------

Joshua R. points to another probation condition - the requirement that he obey all laws - and argues that condition "addresses any concern" he would act unlawfully if he encountered his grandmother. If the requirement that probationers "obey all laws" were as effective as Joshua R. posits, virtually no other probation conditions would ever be necessary. Unfortunately, that is not reality. We will not force juvenile courts and probation officers to sit back and hope wards on probation do as they are told. That is presumably why travel restrictions are common: "[P]robation officers' awareness of probationers' whereabouts facilitates supervision and rehabilitation and helps ensure probationers are complying with the terms of their conditional release. [Citations.]" (People v. Moran, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 406.)

Joshua R. notes that he, like the minor in In re Daniel R. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1, has no gang ties and his crime was not "connected to any other county." But his crime was certainly "connected to" his grandmother, and she moved out of the county. Thus, the travel condition is reasonably related to the victim, who is reasonably related to the crime.

Joshua R. asks that his probation condition be modified to resemble the condition in Antonio R., which prohibited travel to Los Angeles County except with permission from the probation office or accompaniment by a parent. (Antonio R., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 939.) The juvenile court in this case could have permitted out-of-county travel with permission of defendant's father or the probation officer. But the court chose not to. We see no grounds to disturb that decision.

DISPOSITION

The judgment and Joshua R.'s sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

In re Joshua R.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Apr 30, 2018
F076212 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018)
Case details for

In re Joshua R.

Case Details

Full title:In re JOSHUA R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Apr 30, 2018

Citations

F076212 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2018)