People v. Donaldson CA4/3

Filed 8/25/16 P. v. Donaldson CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G052267

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11HF2953)

SCOTT DONALDSON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Terri K. Flynn-Peister, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Samantha Begovich, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION Defendant Scott Donaldson was convicted of vandalism and assault, stemming from a violent argument with his wife. The argument stopped when their then nine-year-old son entered the house. Defendant left immediately with their son because defendant did not want him to be upset when the police arrived. One of defendant’s probation conditions was to participate in a domestic violence batterer’s treatment program, including a parenting component. Defendant challenges the parenting component on two grounds: (1) there was no evidence that he was not a good parent, and (2) the parenting component was not reasonably related either to the crimes of which he was convicted or to preventing future criminality. We conclude the trial court did not err by requiring the parenting component as part of defendant’s probation conditions. At a minimum, defendant exposed his young son to a violent episode between his parents. It was well within the court’s broad exercise of discretion to impose a probation condition that could help prevent exposing defendant’s son to further violence in the future. We therefore affirm.