In re Jonathan A. CA3

Filed 3/6/13 In re Jonathan A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re JONATHAN A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C067783

v. (Super. Ct. No. JV132275)

JONATHAN A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging the minor, Jonathan A., committed three felonies: (1) battery on a peace officer, including personal infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 243, subd. (c)(2), 12022.7)1 (2) resisting an officer (§ 69, as amended by Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 235 [amending sentencing provisions]); and (3) battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

juvenile court adjudicated the minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation with conditions. On appeal, the minor contends: (1) the court’s finding on the charge of resisting an officer must be reversed because it is a lesser included offense of battery on a peace officer; (2) the maximum term of confinement should be stricken; and (3) the probation condition restricting the minor’s ability to travel is unconstitutional and should be stricken. We reject the minor’s first and third contentions. In examining the statutory elements, felony battery on a peace officer is not a necessarily included offense to the offense of resisting an officer. By not objecting to the probation condition in juvenile court, the minor has forfeited any challenge to the reasonableness of the probation condition restricting his travel. Further, under the circumstances, the probation condition restricting the minor’s travel within a 10-mile radius of his home without permission is not an unreasonable restriction of his rights. As to the second contention, we agree the maximum term of confinement should be stricken. The juvenile court had no statutory authority to impose a term of imprisonment because the minor was released to the custody of his legal guardian subject to court probation. Accordingly, we strike the maximum term of confinement. In all other respects, the juvenile court’s orders are affirmed. BACKGROUND On January 17, 2011, a woman called a pizza restaurant and ordered a pizza delivered. When the pizza delivery person arrived at the designated address, he was robbed of the pizza. The victim described several individuals participating in the robbery, including two “male [B]lack juveniles.” The police traced the phone number used to order the pizza to Cynthia Lee, who lived a few houses down from where the pizza was to be delivered.