Filed 11/12/21 In re A.P. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

In re A.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C093294 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. PDL20200014) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.P., Defendant and Appellant.

After the minor, A.P., admitted committing a misdemeanor hit and run (Veh.

Code, § 20002, subd. (a)), the juvenile court placed him on six months’ summary nonwardship probation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725, subd. (a).)1 On appeal, the minor contends that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to impose probation conditions beyond those specified in section 725. The minor also challenges the validity of various

The juvenile court imposed a number of terms and conditions of probation beyond those delineated in section 725, subdivision (a).3 The minor did not object to the

Among the conditions imposed, the juvenile court required that the minor: “Not possess, own, or handle any firearm, knife, weapon, fireworks, explosives, or chemicals that can produce explosives” (condition 10); “Be subject to search and/or seizure of his or her person, vehicle, or place of residence, or any place under his or her control, at any time, day or night, without a search warrant and without probable or reasonable cause, on the direction of the probation officer or a peace officer, for detection of the possession of . . . illegal and Court prohibited items” (condition 14); and “Participate in the Juvenile Court Work Program for a period of 10 days, to be imposed at the discretion of the probation officer, contingent upon your performance at home, school and in the community” (condition 34). The minor objected to condition 10 on the grounds it was overbroad and vague, violated Lent, and did not include an explicit knowledge requirement. The minor’s counsel also objected to the nighttime search in condition 14 on the grounds it was overbroad and violated Lent. The minor did not object to condition 34.

The minor’s probation was scheduled to continue until June 2021. 4 The minor was advised that his case with probation was closed on July 14, 2021.

DISCUSSION The minor contends, contrary to our holding in In re Walter P. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 95, that the trial court lacked authority to impose conditions of probation beyond those referenced in section 725, subdivision (a). The minor also contends: condition 34 is unconstitutionally vague and an unlawful delegation of judicial authority;

We deferred consideration of the request until consideration of the appeal on the merits, and now grant the request for judicial notice. condition 14 is overbroad and fails the Lent test; and condition 10 is overbroad as written,5 is vague because does not include a knowledge requirement, and fails the Lent test.

Defendant was granted six months’ probation on December 14, 2020. The probationary term has expired.

Generally, the expiration or termination of probation renders an appeal challenging a condition of probation moot. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120, fn. 5; In re R.V. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 239, 245.) Where there is a matter of broad public interest that is likely to recur, or the same controversy is likely to recur between the parties, we may exercise our discretion to resolve the issue. (See, e.g., Carbajal, at p. 1120, fn. 5; R.V., at p. 245; see also In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498.) This is not such a case. Since defendant's probation has ended, we conclude the challenges to the probation conditions are moot.

DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.

/s/ HOCH, J.

We concur:

/s/ RAYE, P. J.

/s/ MURRAY, J.