APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Stephan G. Saleson, Judge. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1001127)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hollenhorst J.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
Defendant Zachary Joseph Quiroz appeals from his conviction of burglary of a vehicle. (Pen. Code,*fn1 § 459.) He contends the probation condition requiring him to "[s]ubmit a record of income and expenditures to the Probation Officer as directed" is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and is unauthorized by statute. We disagree, and we affirm.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged in a complaint with three counts of burglary of a vehicle. (§ 459.) On May 17, 2010, he pleaded guilty to one count, and the other two counts were dismissed.
The parties stipulated that the police reports in the court file could serve as the factual basis for the plea. The police reports state that on May 5 and 6, 2010, defendant burglarized at least three vehicles. He broke windows of two of the vehicles to gain entry. He stole items from the vehicles, including baseball bats and gear, two purses, a camera, and a Bible. When defendant was arrested in the area of the third burglary, stolen property from all three vehicles was found in his vehicle. Defendant admitted the burglaries after being given Miranda*fn2 warnings.
The trial court granted defendant three years' probation under terms and conditions that included serving 180 days in county jail, paying restitution of $210 to one victim and of $180 to a second victim, and paying various fines and fees. Probation condition No. 17 was that he "[s]ubmit a record of income and expenditures to the Probation Officer as directed." He was ordered to pay $50 per month toward all ordered amounts.
Defendant contends on appeal that probation condition No. 17 was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and was unauthorized under section 1203.1, subdivision (d). He contends the condition should therefore be modified to delete the requirement that he submit an account of his expenditures to the probation officer.
The People contend that because defendant failed to object to the probation condition in the trial court, he has forfeited his challenge to that condition. As a general rule, a defendant must first raise the issue in the trial court to challenge a probation condition on appeal. (See People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 237.) However, our Supreme Court has held that the forfeiture rule does not apply to a defendant's contention that a probation condition is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face when the challenge presents a pure question of law. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887.) We will therefore consider defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the condition. Similarly, a defendant may challenge for the first time on appeal a probation condition that ...