In re C.P. CA1/1

Filed 2/18/15 In re C.P. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re C.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.P., A141279 Defendant and Appellant. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1101578)

C.P. is a juvenile ward who has had a number of brushes with the law and is now subject to probation conditions. In this appeal, he claims that a condition prohibiting him from changing his residence without his probation officer’s approval is unconstitutional. This condition was first imposed on C.P. about three years ago and then re-imposed several times, but he never objected to it below. We conclude that he forfeited the claim, and we affirm the juvenile court’s disposition order. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND C.P. first came to the juvenile court’s attention in late 2011, when a juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging he committed carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)) and second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). He was 15 at

1

the time. C.P. pleaded no contest to the carjacking count, and the robbery count was dismissed. Following a contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court adjudged C.P. a ward of the court. The form disposition order entered in February 2012 includes the following language: “STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PROBATION. . . . [Do n]ot change residence without prior approval of [probation officer] & notify [probation officer] of change of address/telephone number within 5 days.” The record contains no indication that an objection was made to this condition. C.P. did not appeal from the disposition order. C.P. was placed at Children’s Home of Stockton, but within weeks of his arrival he left and went missing for some time. A notice of probation violation was filed (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 7771), and C.P. admitted the violation. He was placed at Paradise Oaks Youth Services on May 3, but he was soon accused of assaulting and threatening staff and was terminated from the program. The juvenile court sustained an allegation that C.P. violated the terms of his probation, and it committed him to the Youthful Offender Treatment Program (YOTP) for a period of up to eight years, 199 days, or until he turned 21. As did the previous disposition order, this order included the standard condition that C.P. not change his residence without his probation officer’s prior approval. Again, there is no indication C.P. objected to the condition. C.P. remained at YOTP for nearly a year and was released to home supervision (monitored with an ankle bracelet) in September 2013. A notice of probation violation was filed less than two months later, on November 19, alleging that C.P.’s ankle transmitter “went into ‘strap tamper’ status,” and C.P. was brought by his mother to the probation department two days later to have the transmitter reconnected. On November 21, yet another notice of probation violation was filed alleging C.P. had been suspended from school, had left home without permission, and had removed his ankle transmitter and could not be located. C.P.’s whereabouts were unknown for two weeks, 1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.