Filed 4/13/17 In re J.L. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


In re J.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. H043432
(Monterey County
Super. Ct. No. 15-JV000191)


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.


STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Monterey County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging that 17-year-old J.L. had committed the following offenses: first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count 1), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2), and criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a); count 3). Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found that J.L. had committed assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. The juvenile court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the remaining counts, and it dismissed those counts.
At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court continued J.L. as a ward of the court and placed him on probation subject to various terms and conditions. Included in the written terms and conditions of probation was the following: “You are to report to your Probation Officer in person or as directed. Transportation problems or poor weather conditions are not acceptable reasons for not reporting.”
J.L. filed a timely notice of appeal. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
J.L. challenges the probation condition that requires him to report to his probation officer. Specifically, he contends that the language specifying that transportation problems and poor weather conditions are not acceptable reasons for not reporting constitutes “an abuse of discretion because it would allow the court to revoke J.L.’s probation for conduct that is not willful.” (Capitalization omitted.) The Attorney General asserts that J.L. forfeited his claim by failing to object below. As we shall explain, J.L.’s claim is not forfeited, and the challenged language must be stricken.
Legal Principles and the Standard of Review
When placing a ward on probation, the juvenile court “may impose and require any and all reasonable conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730, subd. (b).) “When a condition of juvenile probation is challenged on appeal we review the juvenile court’s decision for abuse of discretion.” (In re Damian M. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1, 6.)
California case law articulates “a general presumption that a violation of a probation condition must be willful.” (People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 501 (Hall).) A court may revoke probation only if the probationer willfully violates the terms and conditions of probation. (People v. Cervantes (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 291, 295.) Probation conditions are “generally presumed to require some form of willfulness, unless excluded ‘ “ ‘expressly or by necessary implication.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (Hall, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 502.)
The Claim is Not Forfeited
“In general, the failure to make a timely objection to a probation condition forfeits the claim of error on appeal.” (People v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1194.) As an exception to this general rule, a challenge to a probation condition may be raised for the first time on appeal if it presents “a pure question of law turning on undisputed facts.” (Ibid.)
Here, J.L.’s challenge to the probation condition presents a pure question of law turning on undisputed facts. He asks this court to review the language of the probation condition and determine whether that language improperly permits revocation of probation for conduct that is not willful. J.L.’s challenge to the probation condition “presents an asserted error that is a pure question of law, easily remediable on appeal by modification of the condition.” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888.) He therefore did not forfeit his claim by failing to object below.
We Must Strike the Challenged Language
The express language of the probation condition here authorizes revocation of probation for conduct that is not willful. The written condition decrees: “You are to report to your Probation Officer in person or as directed. Transportation problems or poor weather conditions are not acceptable reasons for not reporting.” This language is unequivocal. It authorizes revocation of J.L.’s probation if he makes every effort to meet with his probation officer but is unsuccessful due to inclement weather or unforeseen transportation problems. The condition thus improperly permits revocation of J.L.’s probation due to circumstances beyond his control. (See People v. Cervantes, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th 291, 295 [probation may not be revoked where the probationer “is unable to comply with a probation condition because of circumstances beyond his or her control”].) Although a warning from the bench regarding poor weather or transportation problems is not unusual, such language has no place in the written condition because it sanctions probation revocation for conduct that is not willful.
We accordingly must strike the language regarding transportation problems and poor weather. We modify the probation condition to read as follows: “You are to report to your Probation Officer in person or as directed.”
DISPOSITION
The probation condition regarding reporting to the probation officer is modified to state: “You are to report to your Probation Officer in person or as directed.” As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
 

______________________________________
RUSHING, P.J.






WE CONCUR:






____________________________________
PREMO, J.






____________________________________
GROVER, J.










People v. J.L.
H043432