In re Martin M. CA4/3

Filed 5/2/13 In re Martin M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

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

THE PEOPLE, G047568 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DL042308) v. OPINION MARTIN M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nick A. Dourbetas, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, William W. Wood and Meagan J. Beale, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Martin M., a minor, contends the juvenile court imposed an unreasonable condition on his probation. We disagree and affirm the judgment against him. FACTS On July 16, 2012, appellant admitted allegations contained in a wardship petition that he shoplifted beer and illegally possessed alcohol in May 2011. The admission was part of a negotiated disposition pursuant to which the court declared appellant a nonward and placed him on probation subject to various terms and conditions. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725.) The court also ruled appellant could move to withdraw his plea and have the allegations dismissed in six months, in January 2013, if he complied with the terms of his probation and had “no new legal violations.” Two weeks later, on August 1, 2012, a second petition was filed against appellant. The petition alleged appellant tampered with and took personal property from several vehicles. The crimes were alleged to have occurred in June 2012, but they were not brought to the court’s attention when it accepted appellant’s plea on the first petition the following month. Consequently, they were not factored into the negotiated disposition the court accepted in that matter. The prosecutor did not want that scenario to repeat itself. While negotiating with the defense on the second petition, he was willing to let appellant remain on probation as a nonward if he admitted the new allegations. And, as before, he was willing to let appellant move to withdraw his plea and seek a dismissal in January 2013 if he complied with the terms of his probation and he had “no new legal violations.” This time, however, the prosecutor insisted on defining the term “no new legal violations” to include both future violations of the law and any newly discovered violations that appellant had committed in the past. To that end, the parties’ disposition agreement stated appellant could only seek to withdraw his plea if he had no new legal violations, “even predating today.”