In re Makayla B. CA5

Filed 11/15/13 In re Makayla B. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re MAKAYLA B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F066102

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 10CEJ600044-2)

v. OPINION MAKAYLA B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A. Kelley, Jr., Judge. Carol A. Koenig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Todd Marshall and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

Makayla B., a minor at the time of the underlying proceedings, appeals the imposition of a probation condition which restricts her from leaving the State of California without written permission from her probation officer. The condition was imposed by the Fresno County Superior Court, sitting as a juvenile court, after it found Makayla had violated section 242 of the Penal Code (battery) and adjudged her a ward of the court. She now contends the travel restriction is an unreasonable condition of probation and thus constitutes an abuse of discretion by the juvenile court, or alternatively, that the condition is unconstitutionally overbroad as a matter of law. We conclude the first ground for appeal has been forfeited and the latter argument has no merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 14, 2012, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging Makayla had committed misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242). The evidence adduced at a jurisdictional hearing on October 18, 2012, which included Makayla’s own testimony, showed she intentionally struck a convenience store owner in the face while inside of his store. The juvenile court found the allegations against Makayla to be true and sustained the petition. A disposition hearing was held on November 8, 2012. Makayla was declared a ward of the court and received probation without any custody time in juvenile hall. After stating its findings, the court asked the probation officer to recite all requested conditions of probation. The record indicates that the probation officer proceeded to read a portion of the probation department’s written report and recommendations out loud, then paused and said, “Your honor, I think we need to add the provision that she not leave the State of California.” The court replied, “All right.” The recommended condition was then stated