In re D.P.
The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office filed an amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that defendant and appellant D.P. (minor) committed second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, count 1), petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a), count 2), and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), counts 3-5). The juvenile court dismissed counts 1 and 2 outright, minor admitted the allegation in count 4, and the court dismissed the remaining counts pursuant to the parties’ agreement. The court subsequently declared minor a ward and placed him on probation, under specified conditions, in the custody of his parents.
On appeal, minor contends that a few of the probation conditions requiring him to stay away from the victims are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and should be modified to include a knowledge requirement. He further claims that one of the conditions is “confusing, vague and conflicting.†We agree that the terms at issue should be modified to include a knowledge requirement. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment.
Comments on In re D.P.