Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County., No. J214165 Raymond P. Van Stockum and Joan M. Borba, Judges. Affirmed.
Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Garrett Beaumont, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
McKINSTER Acting P.J.
INTRODUCTION
Minor admitted making criminal threats. (Pen. Code, § 422.) The court ordered minor placed on formal probation with a requirement that he serve 30 days in juvenile hall. Minor contends probation condition Nos. 27, 29, and 40 are related to avoiding known gang members, and that gang activities are not reasonably related to the crime he committed or future criminality. Therefore, minor asserts that those gang probation conditions must be stricken and are unconstitutional. We affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
FACTS
The parties stipulated that there was a factual basis for minor’s admission. On April 10, 2007, minor walked by a restaurant located behind his house. Minor stated that the people outside the restaurant were “calling him names” and “trying to ‘jump him.’” Minor yelled toward the group, “‘I’m going to get you! I’ll be back! Just wait!’” Minor walked away, but returned approximately 15 minutes later. Minor waved a gun toward the group outside the restaurant. Minor testified that the gun was a toy and he threw it away.
Minor stated that he did not belong to a gang or tagging crew; however, he admitted regularly associating with gang members and members of tagging crews. Minor admitted using the tagging moniker “Edit.” Minor was expelled from high school due to tagging. Minor has received six citations for various offenses, such as trespassing (Pen. Code, § 602, subds. (m) & (n)), disturbing the peace (Pen. Code, § 415), malicious mischief (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)), graffiti (Pen. Code, § 640.6, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of spray paint (Pen. Code, § 594.1, subd. (e)(1)).
Probation condition No. 27 prohibits minor from possessing, wearing, or displaying any clothing, hand signs, or paraphernalia associated with a gang. Probation condition No. 29 forbids minor from being “in any gang gathering area.” Probation condition No. 40 prohibits minor from associating with known gang members, parolees, or probationers, as well as people disapproved of by minor’s parent(s) or probation officer.
At the disposition hearing, minor objected to seven probation conditions related to gangs because he stated he was not a gang member. The district attorney agreed that two of the gang-related probation conditions should be deleted, but that the remaining probation conditions “are just basic prohibitive terms to help insure that the minor does not get involved in gangs.”
Due to a dispute involving the probation condition requiring minor to be detained in juvenile hall for 30 days, the court held a contested disposition hearing. At the contested hearing, minor again objected to the probation conditions related to gangs. The court agreed to strike two of the probation conditions, but retained the others. The court did not state its reasons for retaining the probation conditions at issue in this case.
The People argue that minor did not object to probation condition No. 40 and, therefore, has forfeited an appeal as to that probation condition. At the disposition hearing, when minor objected, he stated that he was objecting “to the gang terms.” The court then asked for the probation condition numbers. Minor gave a list of seven numbers, but did not say “40.” At the contested disposition hearing, minor stated that he was objecting “to the gang terms 27 to 39.” Although it appears minor has waived his argument as to probation condition No. 40 (see People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356), we nevertheless address the merits of minor’s argument concerning probation condition No. 40 in order to forestall a later claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 854.)
DISCUSSION
Minor contends the gang probation conditions imposed are not related to his crimes or to future criminality. Additionally, minor contends the probation conditions are unconstitutional as an undue burden on his rights to free speech and free association. (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) We assume, without deciding, that minor is correct that the probation conditions infringe on his constitutional rights; however, we conclude that the probation conditions are permissible.
The conditions of probation at issue in this case require or forbid conduct that is not itself criminal; therefore, we must begin by analyzing whether the conditions are valid by virtue of being reasonably related to the crime of which the minor was convicted or to future criminality. (In re Babak S. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1084.) We must then subject the probation conditions to a second level of scrutiny because we assume that they infringe upon minor’s constitutional rights. A probation condition that infringes on constitutional rights will be upheld if it is narrowly drawn to serve the interests of public safety and rehabilitation, and specifically tailored to meet the minor’s needs. (In re Antonio C. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034; In re Babak S., supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at p. 1084.)
The juvenile court has been granted the authority to require any and all reasonable probation conditions that it deems necessary to enhance a minor’s reformation and rehabilitation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730, subd. (b).) Additionally, in planning the probation conditions of minor’s supervision, the juvenile court must consider not only the circumstances of the crime, but also the minor’s entire social history. (In re Todd L. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 14, 20.) The juvenile court’s exercise of discretion concerning probation conditions “will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse. [Citation.]” (In re Josh W. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.)
In his opening and reply briefs, minor cites only cases involving adult defendants. We do not rely on this legal authority because it would cause us to overlook the well-settled rule that probation conditions for minors “may be broader than those pertaining to adult offenders.” (In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 941.)
A. Future Criminality
“Where a court entertains genuine concerns that the minor is in danger of falling under the influence of a street gang, an order directing a minor to refrain from gang association is a reasonable preventive measure in avoiding future criminality and setting the minor on a productive course. Evidence of current gang membership is not a prerequisite to imposition of probation conditions designed to steer minors from this destructive path.” (In re Laylah K. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1496, 1502, disapproved on another ground in In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 962.)
Minor admitted associating with gang members. Minor’s grandmother, with who minor resides, told the probation officer that minor’s friends “are not a good influence on him,” and that minor’s “friends call the house at 1:00 a.m. asking him to go with them.” In addition, minor’s history reflects increasingly delinquent behavior. Based upon this evidence, we conclude that it is reasonable to be concerned that minor is in danger of falling under the influence of a street gang.
The probation conditions precluding minor’s presence at known gang gathering areas, prohibiting association with gang members, and forbidding minor from wearing gang clothing or displaying gang hand signs or gang paraphernalia are reasonably designed to stop minor from participating in gang activity. Accordingly, we conclude that the probation conditions were designed to prevent future criminal behavior.
B. Narrowly Drawn
A probation condition is narrowly drawn if it serves “the important interests of public safety and rehabilitation.” (In re Babak S., supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at p. 1084.)
We have concluded ante, that the probation conditions are designed to prevent minor from participating in criminal gang activity. Preventing future crimes by minor serves the important interests of public safety and minor’s rehabilitation. Accordingly, we conclude the probation conditions are narrowly drawn.
C. Specifically Tailored
Now, we address whether the gang probation conditions are specifically tailored to meet minor’s needs. (In re Christopher M. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 684, 693.)
Minor admitted associating with gang members. The gang probation conditions are reasonably designed to prevent minor from becoming affiliated with a gang and committing future crimes. Accordingly, the probation conditions are specifically tailored to meet minor’s needs during his reformation and rehabilitation.
D. Conclusion
The probation conditions are valid and do not impermissibly infringe on minor’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, we find no manifest abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GAUT J., KING J.