1
Filed 5/4/17 P. v. T.L. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
T.L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A149816
(Napa County
Super. Ct. No. JV18014)
Appellant T.L. “hacked” into his high school’s computer system, reportedly
causing more than $100,000 worth of damage. He was declared a ward of the juvenile
court and placed on probation after he admitted an allegation that he had knowingly
disrupted a computer network in violation of Penal Code section 502, subdivision (c)(5).
(Welf & Inst. Code, § 602.)1

The terms of appellant’s probation initially required him to disclose to his
probation officer all electronic email accounts, internet accounts, and any other means of
accessing a computer or computer network. It also required him to consent to a
warrantless search of all electronic accounts, computer systems and the data contained
therein.
Several months after the dispositional hearing at which probation was granted, the
probation officer sought a modification of the order to add a standard electronics search
condition requiring appellant to “submit all electronic devices under [his] control to

1
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
search and seizure by any law enforcement or probation officer at any time of the day or
night with or without a search warrant, arrest warrant, or reasonable suspicion. The
minor shall also disclose any and all passwords, passcodes, password patterns,
fingerprints, or other information required to gain access into any electronic device as
requested by any law enforcement or probation officer. . . .”
Appellant objected to the modification on the ground that juvenile probation
conditions can only be modified when there has been a change of circumstances. The
probation department acknowledged there had been no change in circumstances, and its
failure to recommend the proposed condition at the time of disposition had been an
“inadvertent omission.” The trial court offered to set the matter for a hearing, but
appellant’s trial counsel declined, stating he did not believe a hearing was necessary. The
juvenile court ordered the probation order modified to include the proposed condition,
finding that although there had been no change in circumstances, the modification was in
appellant’s best interests. It noted that the condition as modified was “simply more
detailed and somewhat more complicated” than the original search condition, but it
provided a better means for the probation department to acquire access to appellant’s
electronic devices.
Appellant appeals from the modification order. His court-appointed appellate
counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the
record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note that appointed counsel has filed a Wende/Anders
brief raising no issues, that appellant has been advised of his right to file a supplemental
brief, and that appellant did not file such a brief. We have independently reviewed the
entire record for potential error and find none.
Appellant did not object to the substance of the modified electronics search
condition, and has forfeited on appeal any claim it was unreasonable given the particular
facts of his case. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889.) In any event, because
appellant admitted a computer hacking offense, an electronics search condition was
3
reasonable and appropriate. (See In re George F. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 734, 739–742,
review granted Sept. 14, 2016, S236397; Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.1115 (E)(1).)
As to whether the court was empowered to modify the probation condition without
a change of circumstances, section 775 provides that in a delinquency case, “[a]ny order
made by the court in the case of any person subject to its jurisdiction may at any time be
changed, modified, or set aside, as the judge deems meet and proper, subject to such
procedural requirements as are imposed by this article.” Section 776 requires notice and
a hearing (such as that offered by the juvenile court in this case) before a prior order may
be modified. Neither provision makes the modification of a prior juvenile court order
contingent on a change in circumstances, and comparable provisions under the juvenile
dependency scheme have been interpreted as allowing the trial court to “reconsider the
substance of a previous order the court considers to have been erroneously, inadvertently
or improvidently granted.” (Nickolaus F. v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 92,
116 (Nickolaus F.).)
A different result is not required by section 778, which provides, “Any parent or
other person having an interest in a child who is a ward of the juvenile court or the child
himself or herself through a properly appointed guardian may, upon grounds of change of
circumstances or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child
was found to be a ward of the juvenile court for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside
any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court. . . .” This
provision applies only when a party petitions the court for a modification based on new
evidence or a change in circumstances, and does not restrict the court’s power to
reconsider its previous order under section 775. (See Nickolaus F., supra, 144
Cal.App.4th at p. 114.)
We are satisfied that appellant’s appointed attorney has fully complied with the
responsibilities of appellate counsel and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins
(2000) 528 U.S. 259, 283.)
4
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
5
NEEDHAM, J.
We concur.
SIMONS, ACTING P.J.
BRUINIERS, J.
(A149816)