P. v.
Quinones

















Filed 7/13/12 P. v. Quinones CA2/8

>

>

>

>

>

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK QUINONES, Defendant and Appellant.

B231775 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA374938) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING [No change in the judgment]

IT IS ORDERED that the opinion
filed in the above-captioned matter on June
18, 2012, be modified as
follows:

1. On page 5, the last sentence of the first
paragraph that begins with “Because we see no possibility that former section
12020, subdivision (a)(4), . . .” should be deleted and replaced
with:

“Because we see no reasonable
possibility that a person would be convicted under former section 12020,
subdivision (a)(4), for carrying a concealed dirk or dagger around inside his
or her home, we are not persuaded by Quinones’ argument that the statute was
unconstitutionally overbroad. In re George W. (1998) 68
Cal.App.4th 1208 (George W.) does not persuade us differently. In George
W., a minor who was subject to a probation condition requiring him to
consent to a search at any time was searched in his parent’s home, and an item
was found in his pants pocket. (Id. at pp. 1209-1210.) A
juvenile delinquency petition was filed alleging a violation of former section
12020, subdivision (a), which made it a crime for anyone to “carr[y] upon his
or her person any dirk or dagger.” The juvenile court sustained the
petition. Division Seven of our court reversed the case, finding that the
trial evidence did not establish that the item in the minor’s pocket was a dirk
or dagger. (Id. at pp. 1211-1215.)
Even considering there is one case, which was reversed, showing a
sustained juvenile petition as to a minor for carrying a dirk or dagger inside
his parent’s home, we still see no support for a claim that there was a
potential constitutional overreach problem with prosecutions under former
section 12020, subdivision (a)(4).”



This modification effects no change
in the judgment.

The petition for rehearing filed by
Appellant on June 25, 2012,
is denied.





_____________________________________________________________________

BIGELOW, P. J. FLIER, J. GRIMES, J.