(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV32776)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rushing, P.J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On October 20, 2009, the appellant admitted making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (a)), and disturbing the peace at school (Pen. Code, § 415.5, subd. (a)).
At a disposition hearing on December 17, 2009, the court declared appellant a ward and placed him on probation with home supervision. He was ordered to "not knowingly participate in any gang activity and/or visit any areas of gang-related activity"; "not knowingly possess, display, or wear any insignia, clothing, logos, emblems, badges, or buttons, or display any gang signs or gestures which he knows to be gang-related"; and "not knowingly post, display, or transmit symbols or information he knows to be gang-related."
On May 7, 2010, appellant charged and knocked over his teacher, Kenneth Johnson at the Odyssey Community School, an alternate school for juvenile probationers.
Appellant was expelled from Odyssey Community School, the teacher pressed charges and a contested hearing was held on June 8 and 11, 2010. On June 11, the trial court found the allegations of the May 7, 2010 petition true and adopted the recommendations of the probation officer with appellant being sentenced to 30 days in juvenile hall and continued on probation on the same conditions as set forth in the December 17, 2009 hearing.
Appellant now claims that the December 17, 2009 conditions are vague and over broad.
The Attorney General argues that since the appeal was taken from the May 10 order, that the June 15, 2010 notice of appeal is untimely and that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
Putting entirely to the side the question whether constitutional over breadth of probation conditions may be raised following an order continuing probation conditions, we find that the claimed over breadth of these conditions is without merit.*fn1
We have written frequently on the issue of over breadth of probation conditions and we perceive no error in the ones imposed in this case.