In re V.B.

Filed 4/3/08 In re V.B. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles Scarlett and Donna Groman, Judges. Modified and affirmed.

Kiana Sloan-Hillier, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and Lance E. Winters, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

V.B. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding by the court that he committed second degree robbery. (Pen. Code,  211.) He was placed home on probation on various terms and conditions and contends condition number 21, that he stay away from places were narcotics users congregate, must be modified. For reasons stated in the opinion, we modify that condition and affirm the order of wardship.[1]

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On June 13, 2006, Joseph Hunter was on the front porch of his residence on 81st Place in Los Angeles when he saw four young men, one being appellant, approaching. Two of them pushed past Mr. Hunter. When Mr. Hunter asked the two where they were going, one pulled out a gun and pointed it at Mr. Hunters face and told him to back off. Mr. Hunter put his hands up and said, Okay.

While two of the young men were in the house, appellant stayed outside with Mr. Hunter. Although appellant kept his hands under his shirt as though he had a gun, he kept assuring Mr. Hunter, Were not going to do anything. The fourth young man stood west of Mr. Hunters property, in the neighbors driveway.

Keeping his hands in the air, Mr. Hunter waved to a neighbor who was outside. When the neighbor appeared to make a call on his cell phone, the young man on the driveway yelled something to the effect of Lets go. The two young men in the house ran out of the door and all four young men ran down the street.

After the police arrived, Mr. Hunter went back into his home and noticed drawers were open and jewelry and other items were missing.

Following waiver of his Miranda^[2] rights, appellant stated he had been with the other minors who robbed Mr. Hunter.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends probation condition number 21, that appellant stay away from places narcotics users congregate, must be modified to include a knowledge requirement. Specifically, he contends the condition must be modified to state that appellant is ordered to stay away from places where he knows drug users congregate. Respondent agrees. As the appropriate remedy is to modify the condition to include a knowledge requirement (see In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 891-892), we will do so.

DISPOSITION

Probation condition number 21 is modified to read, Do not use or possess narcotics, controlled substances, poisons, or related paraphernalia; stay away from places you know to be where users congregate. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P.J. MANELLA, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] Initially, the court granted a deferred entry of judgment but the order was thereafter vacated as illegal.

[2]Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.