In re Ronnie B.
Filed 5/15/06 In re Ronnie B. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
In re RONNIE B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B183556 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ21269) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONNIE B., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Shep Zebberman, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Ana R. Duarte and Tasha G. Timbadia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
The minor Ronnie B. appeals from the order continuing wardship entered following his admission he committed second degree robbery by taking the victim's money at knife point. He contends two of his probation conditions are unconstitutional. We affirm the order as modified.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleged the minor committed the crimes of second degree robbery and making criminal threats.[1] It was specially alleged the minor used a knife in committing the robbery.[2] As part of a negotiated plea, the minor admitted he had committed second degree robbery. The court set the maximum period of confinement at six years, ordered the minor into a nine-month violent offender camp community program, and reimposed certain terms and conditions of probation.[3]
DISCUSSION
At the time of disposition, the minor was currently on probation and subject to various terms and conditions, including those he now contests on appeal. The court ordered the existing orders to remain in full force and effect. The conditions the minor is challenging are: he is not to associate with anyone disapproved of by his parents and the probation officer (condition 15); he not have any dangerous or deadly weapon in his possession, nor remain in the presence of any unlawfully armed person (condition 16).[4] The minor failed to object to these conditions at any time in juvenile court.
The minor now contends these conditions are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and urges us to modify them to include a knowledge requirement. The People argue the minor forfeited his challenge to these conditions by failing to object in the juvenile court and, in any event, the requirement of knowledge is implicit in the conditions as imposed.
Without reaching the issue of waiver or forfeiture, we agree, reasonably read, each of the conditions necessarily includes the requirement of knowledge. In other words, it is implied the minor must be aware of: the disapproval of his parents and probation officer of the prospective association (condition 15), and the person(s) with whom he intends to associate are armed (condition 16). However, to eliminate the possibility of any improper, overly broad interpretation of these conditions, we modify them to expressly include a knowledge requirement.[5]
DISPOSITION
Probation condition 15 is modified to read, â€
