In re M.G.



















Filed 5/21/10 In re M.G. CA1/3

>

>

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.











IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
THREE




>

In re M.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.G., Defendant and Appellant.	A126473 (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. JW096051)

M.G.
appeals probation conditions designed to restrict his affiliation with gang
members, asserting that they are vague and overbroad because they are not
predicated on his personal knowledge and therefore must be modified. We agree.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND

Over
the course of about three hours, starting late on January 24, 2009, and ending early on January 25, 2009, M.G. and some companions are
alleged to have committed four street robberies. These robberies involved, variously, the use
of a gun, a knife, and fists to beat and or threaten the victims. One of the victims was beaten so severely
that he had to be hospitalized.
According to the arresting officers, M.G. and his companions are members
of the Norteño gang. M.G.'s father also
stated that M.G. is a Norteño gang member, but M.G. denied any gang
affiliation.

M.G.
admitted to a single count of the petition, alleging second degree robbery, a felony, in
violation of Penal Code section 211. In
return for M.G.'s plea, the district attorney dismissed the other remaining
counts and withdrew a request for a fitness hearing. M.G. was declared a ward of the court and
removed from his home. The court ordered
an out-of-home placement and imposed a number of probation conditions, including
that he not associate with known or suspected gang members. M.G. made no objection to the conditions of
probation, and timely appealed.

>DISCUSSION

A. Forfeiture

M.G.
now asserts that the gang-related conditions of his probation compromise his
constitutional right of freedom of association because they are vague and
overbroad. Although this assertion was
not made in the juvenile court, we
are not precluded from considering this issue.
(People v. Williams (1998) 17
Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6.) An assertion
that a probation condition is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad is a pure
question of law and is not subject to forfeiture on appeal when it can be
easily resolved without additional fact finding. (In re
Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 878-879, 888.) M.G.'s claim falls within these parameters,
and therefore we will address it on the merits.

B. Gang-Related
Probation Conditions

To
survive a vagueness challenge, a probation condition must be worded in a way
that the probationer will know what is required and the court will know when or
if the condition has been violated. ( >In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890.) In Sheena
K., the California Supreme Court considered a ward's claim that the condition
of her probation forbidding her from associating with â€