Opinion
A132149
10-25-2011
In re T.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.M., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J11-00750)
T.M. (the minor) appeals from a dispositional order of the juvenile court entered after a finding that she committed misdemeanor battery on a school employee. The minor's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issue for appeal and asking this court to make an independent review of the record. The minor was informed of her right to file a supplemental brief. We have received no such brief. After independently reviewing the record, we find no error or cause for further briefing and therefore shall affirm.
BACKGROUND
A juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) was filed on May 5, 2011, alleging the minor had committed felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and felony battery against a school employee (Pen. Code, § 243.6). The minor was detained. On May 6, the juvenile court added an allegation that the minor had committed misdemeanor battery on a school employee, dismissed the other two allegations, and sustained the misdemeanor allegation.
At a hearing on May 6, the minor pled no contest to misdemeanor battery against a school employee (Pen. Code, § 243.6).According to the police report, the minor bit her geometry teacher on April 1, 2011 when the minor refused to put her phone away and the teacher attempted to take it from her. The minor bit the teacher "on the left forearm hard enough that it tore through his shirt and left a substantial bite mark. [The teacher] let go of the phone and before she left the classroom, [the minor] said, 'I hope I hurt you.' " According to the probation report, the minor "admitted to wrongdoing in that she shouldn't have bit [the teacher], but quickly followed that up with 'he shouldn't have taken my phone.' . . . [The minor] also believes that it is not fair that she is facing charges while he is still teaching as she strongly believes he incited the situation." The minor's mother "has similar feelings about the offense as [the minor]. She agrees that the teacher should not have grabbed her daughter's phone, but should have elicited another consequence for her daughter's defiant behavior, such as sending her out of the classroom."
The minor represented to the court that the police report served as the factual basis for the minor's plea of no contest. The record on appeal does not contain a copy of the police report, but the probation report relates the contents of the police report.
The probation report states the minor was sexually abused by her biological father when she was "about 6 or 7 years old and only one time. However, the trauma from this abuse has been too much for [the minor] to bear as she began to cut school, disobey her mother and then eventually ran away to Los Angeles where she allegedly prostituted herself. [Mother] stated that the alleged abuse has been reported to CPS and that she has sought help for [the minor] but [the minor] refuses to address the issue." The report concludes that over the preceding three years, the minor "has demonstrated poor and non-compliant behavior both in the home and at school. Though she was a GATE student in her elementary school years, since the age of 13, she has been beyond the control of her mother. She has allegedly been prostituting herself in the bay area and has even traveled to Los Angeles County to conduct herself in the same manner. She has a long history of running away, failing to attend or participate in school and is currently pending expulsion for the underlying offense. Her mother . . . has been trying to seek help to assist with managing her daughter's behavior and has even sent her daughter to Colorado to disengage [the minor] from her present environment, but her disobedient and precarious behavior continues. Given her history of risky behaviors, which likely stem from the sexual abuse at the hands of her father, probation is concerned for [the minor's] welfare and safety in the community. This is a young lady who desperately needs intervention before she finds herself in a more ominous situation."
On May 20, at the disposition hearing, the minor was adjudged a ward of the court, ordered detained in juvenile hall, subjected to a curfew and a search condition, and ordered to pay restitution in an amount to be determined at a later hearing. She was also ordered to participate in the "Girls In Motion" program, a custodial program administered by the county, and to successfully complete that program.
On May 23, the minor timely noticed an appeal from the "dispositional order committing minor to 'Girls In Motion' custodial program at Juvenile Hall."
DISCUSSION
Because the notice of appeal specifies only the order that the minor participate in the Girls In Motion program, we restrict our review to that portion of the disposition. " 'It is elementary that an appeal from a portion of a judgment brings up for review only that portion designated in the notice of appeal. [Citation.] While it is true that notices of appeal are to be liberally construed with a view to hearing causes on their merits [citation], we are of the opinion that the notice filed in the present case does not present "a mere misdescription" of the judgment, calling for the application of said rule, but rather . . . that portion of the judgment appealed from is so clear and unmistakable as to preclude [review of other portions of the judgment].' " (Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 625.)
The juvenile court may set reasonable terms and conditions of probation for a minor under the jurisdiction of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725.) "As a general rule, failure to challenge a probation condition on constitutional or Lent [People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481] grounds in the trial court waives the claim on appeal." (In re Antonio C. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1033.) The minor did not object to the condition that she participate in the Girls In Motion program, but in any event "[a] juvenile court is vested with broad discretion to select appropriate probation conditions. [Citation.] The court may impose any reasonable condition that is 'fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced.' " (Ibid.)
The probation report observes that the minor "is clearly beyond parental control and is at risk to continue with her current pattern of behavior unless interventions are imposed. [She] would benefit from individual counseling . . . , group counseling, family counseling, substance abuse counseling, anger management, participating in the MISSEY program and education. With appropriate case plan and services, [the minor] can overcome the unfortunate events that have occurred in her life and move forward." The report goes on to recommend that she be adjudged a ward of the court and "be committed to the GIM program with standard terms and conditions of probation." We have no reason to doubt that the Girls In Motion program will provide at least some of the recommended services and therefore is well within the court's discretion to impose as a term of probation.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Pollak, J. We concur: McGuiness, P. J. Siggins, J.