In Re Josue S.

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of the indicated portions on pages 7 through 9.

The minor, Josue S., appeals from a wardship order (Welf. Inst. Code, § 602) and the probation conditions imposed by the juvenile court. The minor pled no contest to the offense of vandalism. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a).) The juvenile court sustained the petition and placed the minor home on probation. In the published portion of this opinion we conclude that objections interposed to various probation conditions for the first time on appeal are untimely and are waived or forfeited.

The minor argues that the trial court improperly imposed probation conditions that have no reasonable relationship to the facts underlying the wardship order and his personal history. More specifically, the minor objects *Page 170 to the following conditions of probation: (1) warrantless searches; (2) restrictions on travel; and (3) maintenance of satisfactory school grades.1 He further argues that the conditions of probation restrict his constitutional rights. The minor's offense involved an incident where he and a companion threw rocks at an occupied 1992 Mercedes Benz automobile, causing approximately $300 in damage. The probation officer's report noted: "[T]he minor's past truancies have greatly interfered with his academic progress. [¶] [T]he minor's actions could have easily injured the victim."

At the outset, we address the suggestion that the imposition of the conditions of probation are constitutionally overbroad or vague. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly held that constitutional objections must be interposed in order to preserve such contentions on appeal. (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153,250 [objection raised for the first time on appeal that admission of gang paraphernalia violated defendant's associational rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments waived when not presented in trial court]; People v. Padilla (1995) 11 Cal.4th 891,971, overruled on another point in People v. Hill (1998)17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1 [failure to request a particular instruction where there is no sua sponte duty to instruct waived due process contention]; People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060,1116, fn. 20 [the defendant's federal constitutional due process, fair trial, reliable guilt determination claims concerning the admissibility of a videotape waived in a capital case when they were not interposed in the trial court]; People v.Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 173 [Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment claims to a fair trial and equal protection in connection with jury selection waived when not presented in trial court]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1174 [Sixth Amendment discriminatory juror selection issue waived when not presented in trial court]; People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 972-973, fn. 10 [Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment confrontation, cruel and unusual punishment, and due process claims respectively waived by failure to interpose them in trial court].) The reason for these rules has been articulated by the California Supreme Court as follows: "`"An appellate court will ordinarily not consider procedural defects or erroneous rulings, in *Page 171 connection with relief sought or defenses asserted, where an objection could have been, but was not, presented to the lower court by some appropriate method. . . . The circumstances may involve such intentional acts or acquiescence as to be appropriately classified under the headings of estoppel or waiver. . . . Often, however, the explanation is simply that it is unfair to the trial judge and to the adverse party to take advantage of an error on appeal when it could easily have been corrected at the trial."' (Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1 , italics in Doers.) [The California Supreme Court has held,] `"The purpose of the general doctrine of waiver is to encourage a defendant to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected or avoided and a fair trial had. . . ."' (People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1023 .) [Further, the California Supreme Court has noted:] `"No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right," or a right of any other sort, "may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it." [Citation.]' (United States v. Olano (1993) [507 U.S. 725, 731].)" (People v.Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590, fn. omitted.)