In re Jeremiah W. CA2/8

Filed 10/21/15 In re Jeremiah W. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re JEREMIAH W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B261632

THE PEOPLE, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ38104) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JEREMIAH W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Irma J. Brown, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and Tasha G. Timbadia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

Jeremiah W. was declared a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 for his participation in a robbery. Seventeen-year-old Jeremiah admitted to being the driver of the getaway vehicle while his friend robbed Noah Saperstein of his iPhone on September 5, 2014. The juvenile court placed Jeremiah in a five to seven month camp community placement program with a five year maximum period of confinement. He was given predisposition credit of 73 days. On appeal, Jeremiah contends the juvenile court miscalculated his custody credits. It is undisputed Jeremiah is entitled to five additional days of custody credit; he was detained from October 31, 2014 until the disposition hearing on January 16, 2015. Therefore, he should have been given 78 days of predisposition credit. (Pen. Code, § 2900.5, subd. (a); In re J.M. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1256.) Jeremiah next challenges a condition of probation imposed by the juvenile court: “You must go to school every day. You must be on time to each class. You must have good behavior at school. You must receive satisfactory grades.” Jeremiah contends this condition is overbroad and violates his due process right because it “potentially impinges on legitimate activities, such as school field trips, or family events or emergencies. This also impacts appellant’s right to privacy.” Jeremiah suggests this condition should be modified to include the requirement that his absence or tardiness be unexcused, before he can be found in violation of probation. Although Jeremiah failed to object to this condition at sentencing, the forfeiture rule does not apply when a probation condition is challenged as unconstitutionally vague or overbroad on its face and the claim can be resolved on appeal as a pure question of law without reference to the sentencing record. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887- 889 (Sheena K.).) Accordingly, our review of this issue is de novo. (In re J.H. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 174, 183.) We disagree that this condition of probation impinges on Jeremiah’s right to privacy. Jeremiah’s status as a ward of the court necessarily means he no longer enjoys the same privacy rights as someone who is not. Welfare and Institutions Code section 730, subdivision (b) provides that when a minor who is adjudged a ward of the court