Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. J209505 Lawrence Kapiloff and Thomas M. Fiorello, Judges.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
BACKGROUND
At approximately 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. on November 16, 2006, Dave Avner walked to the Palomar trolley station. Approximately seven or eight juveniles were there in a group. One of the male juveniles came up to Avner and asked for a cigarette. When Avner refused, the male juvenile slapped Avner's head. One of the female juveniles got very close to Avner's face and began making threatening gestures and comments.
While these events were unfolding, Avner was holding his cell phone in his left hand. As the female juvenile was threatening Avner, the juvenile in this case, Yesenia M., ran to him and grabbed his cell phone. Avner ran after her and tackled her as the other juveniles chased him. When Avner tackled Yesenia to the ground, the juveniles began kicking and punching him. Yesenia joined them in hitting and kicking him in the ribs and head. The attack lasted about 20 to 30 minutes. During the attack, one of the juveniles removed Avner's wallet from his back pocket. They also took a silver ring from his left hand.
When Avner was able to get away, he was pursued by some of the juveniles and beaten a second time. The juveniles decided to leave before the police came. Avner was able to walk to a fast food restaurant where he asked a man to call 9-1-1.
As a result of the two beatings, Avner suffered bruised ribs, a swollen lip and a bruised head. The total value of the items stolen from him was over $400.
The following day Avner saw Yesenia and Corey S. at the Palomar trolley station. He believed they were part of the group that attacked him the previous day. He called the police. When the police arrived, Yesenia and Corey attempted to flee but were detained. Avner identified Yesenia as the female who took the cell phone from him. He could not positively identify Corey as an attacker.
During their detention, Yesenia and Corey were interviewed by Chula Vista Police Officer Edward Tugashov. Corey told the officer that Yesenia and Yesenia's sister came to his house about 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. on November 16, the night of the attack. Yesenia told the officer she was with her sister and brother at the trolley station at around 9:00 or 10:00 the night of the attacks on Avner. At trial she testified that on the night of the attacks she and her sister were at the trolley station waiting for a bus around 6:30 p.m., and they took a bus to Corey's house where they spent the night. They saw nobody take a cell phone from anyone.
Corey testified that on the night of the attacks Yesenia came over to his house at about 6:30 p.m. and stayed there without leaving until the next day. Yesenia's sister Elizabeth M. testified that she and Yesenia were at the Palomar trolley station at about 6:00 p.m. on November 16, and they went to Corey's house where they stayed until the next day.
On November 21, 2006, the District Attorney for San Diego County filed an amended petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. With respect to the November 16, 2006, attacks on Avner, Yesenia was charged in count 4 with robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211, in count 5 with battery in violation of Penal Code section 242, in count 6 with grand theft from a person in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (c), and in count 7 with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1).
On February 16, 2007, after a contested hearing, the court found true the allegations that Yesenia committed robbery, battery and grand theft from a person. Counts 1 through 3, which were not related to the attacks on Avner, were dismissed. Yesenia was declared a ward of the court and placed in the continued custody of her mother for one year of formal probation.
Yesenia filed a timely notice of appeal. Her sole argument is that the court placed an undue burden on her, and abused its discretion, when it required as a condition of probation that she have no contact with Corey. We conclude the condition was appropriate and court acted properly in imposing the condition.
ANALYSIS
Yesenia contends on appeal that the court violated her constitutional right to free association when as a condition of probation it ordered her to have no contact with Corey. We disagree.
Initially, we note that Yesenia did not object to the condition of probation at the time she was sentenced. Generally, such a failure to object forfeits a claim of unreasonable conditions, but not constitutional challenges. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 881, 883, fn. 4, 885; In re S. B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, fn. 2.)
We are left with the assertion that in prohibiting contact with Corey the court imposed a condition of probation that is unconstitutionally overbroad. Again, we do not agree.
Welfare and Institutions Code section 730, subdivision (b), provides that the juvenile court may properly place a ward on probation and in doing so impose and require any and all reasonable conditions it may determine to be fit and proper to the end that justice may be done and reformation and rehabilitation of the ward is enhanced. Section 730 grants broad discretion to the juvenile court. (In re Ronny P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1207.) It may impose restrictions that serve to guide a minor, and this is so where these restrictions are specifically tailored to fit the needs of the juvenile. (In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 941.) The court may consider the minor's entire social history as well as the circumstances of the crime. (In re Binh L. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 194, 203.)
It is clear that while not identified as being directly involved in the attacks on Avner, Corey provided a contrived alibi defense for Yesenia. When interviewed after his detention, he told Officer Tugashov that on the night of the attacks on Avner she came to the house about 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. He later testified that Yesenia came to his house about 6:30 p.m. the night of the attacks and spent the entire night there. As an individual who would cover for Yesenia's misconduct, to the point of possibly perjuring himself, it was appropriate for the court to eliminate any contact Yesenia might have with him. As respondent points out, at a minimum Corey acted as an enabler of Yesenia's crimes. Both in theory and on the facts of this case, the condition of probation was reasonable and was not a violation of Yesenia's rights of association.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: NARES, J., HALLER, J.