In re Justin G.
Filed 2/25/08 In re Justin G. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re JUSTIN G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B200028 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ15197) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUSTIN G., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Charles R. Scarlett, Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Holly J. Jackson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and Lance E. Winters, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
The juvenile court sustained a petition charging Justin G. (minor) with two counts of commercial burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459 and one count of battery in violation of Penal Code section 242. At minors disposition hearing, the juvenile court found that minor was a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and declared him a ward of the court. The juvenile court committed minor to the care, custody, and control of the probation officer for a suitable placement and imposed terms and conditions of probation. The court determined minors maximum confinement time to be three years.
Minor appeals on the ground that probation condition No. 15, which prohibits him from associating with anyone disapproved of by parents or probation officer should be modified to include a requirement of knowledge.
FACTS
On May 20, 2007, minor told his brother, H., to accompany him to Kmart to steal. When H. refused, minor said, Too bad. At the store, minor pointed out some clothes and told H. they were going to get them. When H. refused, minor began slapping him.
H. still refused. Minor took two articles of clothing, rolled them up, and put them in his waist. Minor then went to the restroom and rearranged the clothing. The two boys left the store and went to a dollar store. Minor said he was going to get something from the store. He took some long socks and put them in his pocket.
Minors mother recalled that minor returned home that day and began dancing around, saying he had jacked an outfit for a weekend picnic. He showed her an outfit consisting of beige Dickies, a shirt, and long socks.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends that his probation condition No. 15 restricts his freedom of association and travel and is unconstitutionally overbroad. Minor requests that the condition be modified to read: Do not associate with any person known to you to be disapproved of by your parents or Probation Officer. Respondent agrees.
The California Supreme Court has held that a probation condition ordering a probationer not to associate with anyone disapproved of by probation is unconstitutionally vague and should be modified to require that the probationer have knowledge that the probation officer disapproves of a particular associate. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 878-879.) The Supreme Court stated that [a] probation condition must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated, if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness. [Citation.] A probation condition that imposes limitations on a persons constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad. [Citation.]
(Id. at p. 890.) The court further held that issues of vagueness and overbreadth are not forfeited where, as here, the issues are being raised for the first time on appeal.
(Id. at p. 879.)
We therefore modify probation condition No. 15 to provide, Do not associate with anyone known to you to be disapproved of by either your parents or your probation officer. (In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 892; see also In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 816 [Prohibiting association with gang members without restricting the prohibition to known gang members is a classic case of vagueness].)
DISPOSITION
The order of wardship is affirmed. The juvenile court is ordered to modify probation condition No. 15 to read that minor is not to associate with anyone known to him to be disapproved of by his parents or the probation officer.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
____________________, P. J.
BOREN
We concur:
____________________, J. ____________________, J.
DOI TODD CHAVEZ
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.
