Filed 7/5/06 In re William D. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re WILLIAM D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM D., Defendant and Appellant. |
F047905
(Super. Ct. No. 04CEJ601523-2)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Adolpho M. Corona, Judge.
Tim Warriner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
William D. (appellant), a minor, appeals from a juvenile court order sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition charging him with committing a sexual battery pursuant to Penal Code section 243.4, subdivision (e)(1) and indecent exposure pursuant to Penal Code section 314, subdivision 1. At a disposition hearing, appellant was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on probation. The probation order included various conditions, including that he submit his person or property to search and seizure at any time by a probation or peace officer.
Appellant argues that the findings that he committed the offenses are not supported by sufficient evidence and that the imposition of the probation search condition was an abuse of discretion under state law as well as a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. We reject these contentions and affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 31, 2005, a petition was filed charging appellant with two counts of sexual battery (counts 1 & 3; Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (e)(1)) and two counts of indecent exposure (counts 2 & 4; Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1). Appellant denied the allegations and an adjudication was commenced. On March 22, 2005, the juvenile court found counts 3 and 4 true and determined appellant was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.
On April 27, 2005, the juvenile court placed appellant with his uncle and aunt, ordered appellant to serve 100 hours of community service, ordered appellant to pay a $100 fine pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, ordered appellant to remain a ward of the court until further court order, and ordered appellant to obey various conditions of probation.
The conditions of probation required appellant to (1) obey all laws, (2) not own or possess any dangerous or deadly weapons, (3) complete a sexual awareness program, (4) complete substance abuse counseling, (5) obey a curfew, (6) submit to testing to detect use of controlled substances, (6) refrain from consuming alcohol, (7) not use or possess controlled substances, and (8) not associate with the confidential victims, known gang members, or persons disapproved by a parent or probation officer. In addition, appellant was required to â€
