In re M.T. CA1/3

Filed 11/30/20 In re M.T. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re M.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, A157517 v. (City & County of M.T., San Francisco Super. Ct. Defendant and Appellant; No. JW176102)

M.T., a minor in an out-of-home placement, challenges a probation condition requiring him to participate in “any programs of counseling” or “any other programs and/or services” referred to him and “deemed appropriate” by probation. He contends the condition improperly delegates judicial authority to the probation officer to decide in the first instance the specific programs M.T. must participate in to successfully complete probation. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND While walking in downtown San Francisco one evening with his smartphone in hand, S.C. was suddenly hit on the side of his head. He fell to

1

the ground. He was surrounded by four people who continuously hit him and knocked the phone out of his hands. They grabbed the device and ran. Using the phone’s tracking software, police officers located S.C.’s phone moving towards Civic Center. Near an area known for stolen goods trafficking, officers spotted individuals matching the description of the suspects and followed them on foot. The officers saw one of them, who was later identified as M.T.’s co-defendant, attempt to sell a phone to passersby. The officers approached, identified themselves, took the phone, and detained him so he could not flee. The officers identified M.T. as one of the seller’s three companions. M.T. fled and was later detained nearby. After the victim verified the recovered phone was his, it was returned to him. The District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) charging M.T. with second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and misdemeanor resisting or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148). At the contested jurisdictional hearing, all the responding officers, S.C., and M.T. testified. M.T. admitted participating in the robbery and identified himself in surveillance video of the incident. That day, he met friends downtown and planned to steal phones. He did not know his friend was going to punch S.C. beforehand. Normally, they would just snatch the phone and run. M.T. said he took no part in hitting S.C. The court sustained the second-degree robbery and resisting arrest allegations. M.T. also admitted a felony grand theft allegation (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)) in another petition related to an earlier phone theft from a different victim.