In re Ricardo D. CA4/3

Filed 10/4/16 In re Ricardo D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re RICARDO D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G052171

v. (Super. Ct. No. DL048988-003)

RICARDO D., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Fred W. Slaughter, Judge. Affirmed. Forest M. Wilkerson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

The juvenile court declared 15-year-old Ricardo D. (born June 1999) to be ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after he admitted committing misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242 [count 1]) and misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, § 240 [count 2]). The minor contends the juvenile court violated his federal constitutional rights by imposing a probation condition requiring him to “not associate with anyone who [he knows] is a member of a statutorily defined criminal street gang; or is a member of an illegal tagging crew,” because nothing in the record reflects he was involved in gang activities. Minor’s claim fails because he expressly agreed to the term as a part of the disposition agreement, and did not object to the probation condition in the juvenile court. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the judgment. I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2015, the Orange County District Attorney filed a petition alleging Ricardo D. committed battery and assault on June 11, 2015. According to the probation department’s probable cause declaration and detention report, minor’s mother caught him in his bedroom with a girl and instructed the girl to leave. Minor angrily yelled at his mother, pushed her out of his room, and he followed his friend outside. Minor’s mother approached the front door to order him to return to his room. Minor attempted to punch his sister, but missed and struck his mother in the shoulder. The court previously had placed minor on probation in March 2014 based on two prior petitions, which the appellate record does not contain, and the court had terminated those proceedings in December 2014. At the detention hearing on June 15, 2015, minor entered into a plea and disposition agreement with the court. Minor waived his rights and admitted the offenses. He acknowledged he had been advised if he admitted the offense the court would release him to his parents’ custody and “[i]mpose probation under terms as stated on the attached form.” The attached form specified several conditions, including eight days in a juvenile