Filed 9/27/18 In re M.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.M., Defendant and Appellant.
|
A153249
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1700801)
|
M.M. appeals from an order designating her a ward of the juvenile court and placing her on probation. Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.
DISCUSSION
A petition for wardship was filed alleging M.M. attempted to commit forgery by depositing fraudulent checks into her bank account and withdrawing funds. After deferred entry of judgment and informal probation were denied, M.M. entered a no contest plea to a single misdemeanor count of attempted forgery. She was placed on probation.
The conditions of probation appear usual and customary with the addition of an “electronic search condition.” That condition specifies that M.M. is to submit her “cell phone or any other electronic devices under [her] control to a search of any medium of communication reasonably likely to reveal whether you are complying with the terms of your probation. . . . Such media of communication include text messages, voicemail messages, photographs and e-mail accounts.” The court imposed this condition because M.M. used her cell phone in the commission of the offense to communicate with an accomplice and her conditions of probation prohibited any further contact between the two of them. In the circumstances, we conclude this condition is sufficiently narrow to ensure M.M.’s compliance with her conditions of probation and does not unnecessarily intrude on her right to privacy or free speech. (See In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890.)
M.M.’s plea appears to have been knowing and voluntary. Her counsel has represented to us that she advised M.M. of her intention to file a Wende brief in this case and of M.M.’s right to submit supplemental argument on her own behalf. M.M. has not done so.
There was no error. Our full review of the record discloses no issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
_________________________
Siggins, P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Pollak, J.
_________________________
Jenkins, J.
In re M.M., A153249
