In re S.B. CA5

Filed 3/17/23 In re S.B. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re S.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F085036

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Fresno Super. Ct. No. 22CEJ600115-1) v.

S.B., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Virna L. Santos, Judge. Candice L. Christensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Lewis A. Martinez, and Joseph Penney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.

Appellant challenges the juvenile court’s probation condition limiting his access to phones/electronics. The Attorney General concedes the probation condition should be modified but not to the extent requested by appellant. We largely accept the Attorney General’s position, modify the condition, and affirm. BACKGROUND On April 5, 2022, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) pertaining to appellant S.B. The petition alleged appellant committed an assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (count 1; Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)),1 and battery with serious bodily injury (count 2; § 243, subd. (d).) A great bodily injury enhancement was alleged as to each count. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) An order filed on July 26, 2022, reflects appellant admitted count 1, and that count 2 was dismissed. A dispositional hearing was held September 21, 2022, wherein the court committed appellant to the Juvenile Justice Center for 90 days and placed him on probation for one year. The court imposed a probation condition concerning electronic devices. That condition is the focal point of the present appeal and is described further below. On September 29, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging his probation conditions. FACTS2 A 14-year-old male (i.e., “the victim”) told police he was returning to a motel after visiting a food truck. He observed 8 to 10 individuals near the pool. About half of the group were males and the other half were females. One of them asked the victim if he skated, and he responded affirmatively.