In re Mark B. CA4/1

── In re Mark B. CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/3/26 In re Mark B. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In re MARK B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D086015 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J244561) v. MARK B., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Joshua Peter Visco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Maxine M. Hart and Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  After assaulting his assistant principal and resisting detention, Mark B. was adjudged a ward of the State and placed on probation. He challenges two probation conditions imposed by the judge. He first argues a condition requiring him to “participate in counseling and/or an education program ... as directed by your Probation Officer” constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of judicial discretion to the probation officer. We agree that this condition is too indefinite and reverse and remand for the court to modify or strike it. Mark also argues his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to a condition ordering him not to contact his victim’s family. We find the record does not rebut the presumption that counsel’s actions fell within the broad range of reasonableness, and thus fails to demonstrate ineffective assistance on direct appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mark shoved an assistant principal at his school, then resisted detention. The juvenile court made true findings on one count of battering a school employee (Penal Code, § 243.6) and one count of resisting an officer (id., § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Mark was adjudged a ward pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602 and placed in the custody of his mother, subject to the supervision of a probation officer. Among the conditions of probation, the court ordered: “You must participate in counseling and/or an education program with your parent or guardian, as directed by your Probation Officer.” The court also ordered Mark to “not knowingly have any direct or indirect contact with the 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 [assistant principal] ... or any of their family members.” Mark did not object to these conditions. DISCUSSION A. Counseling and/or Education Condition Mark challenges the condition providing that he must participate in “counseling and/or an education program.” He argues this condition “appears to give the probation officer unfettered discretion to determine what kind of counseling or education program would benefit [him] and to order him to participate in whatever that might be.” He argues the court has thus “improperly delegate[d] the issue of counseling and education programing to the discretion of the probation officer.” The People acknowledge, and we agree, that although Mark did not object to this condition, we may still consider his challenge because it presents a pure question of law. (See In r