Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ct. No. GJ25426, Philip L. Soto, Judge.
Tara K. Hoveland, 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, Keith H. Borjon and A. Scott Hayward, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ARMSTRONG, J.
The trial court sustained a petition alleging that appellant B.G. possessed burglar's tools in violation of Penal Code section 466. The court found that appellant was a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, adjudged appellant to be a ward of the court, and placed him on home probation for a period not to exceed six months.
Appellant appeals from the orders sustaining the petition and adjudging him to be a ward of the court, contending that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that he possessed burglar's tools, and further contending that the trial court erred in imposing two of the probation conditions. We affirm the trial court's orders.
Facts
On July 1, 2007, about 8:50 p.m., security guard Louis Flores was working in the parking structure of the Westfield Santa Anita Mall in Arcadia. He saw appellant and another young man looking inside parked vehicles. He walked toward the young men, who fled when they saw him. Flores was able to catch appellant. During Flores's struggle to detain appellant, a screwdriver fell out of appellant's pants pocket. Flores searched appellant for weapons and found another screwdriver and a type of pliers called a screw clamp.
Arcadia Police Officer Walter Ashby arrived and took custody of appellant. Officer Ashby advised appellant of his constitutional rights. Appellant waived those rights and spoke with the officer. He first stated that he was at the mall to go shopping and that the tools were not his. Then he admitted that the tools were his and that he intended to steal a bumper light for a friend's truck.
Discussion
1. Sufficiency of the evidence
Appellant contends that the evidence shows that there is insufficient evidence that he had the required intent for the offense of possession of burglar's tools.
Penal Code section 466 provides in pertinent part: "Every person having upon him or her in his or her possession a . . . screwdriver, vise grip pliers, . . . or other instrument or tool with intent feloniously to break or enter into any building, railroad car, aircraft, or vessel, trailer coach, or vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code, . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor."
Appellant acknowledges that he was in possession of two screwdrivers and a pair of pliers when he was detained by the security guard, but contends that he lacked an intent to break or enter into any vehicle. Appellant points to his statement to police that he was looking for a bumper light to steal for a friend's truck. He contends that such an item can be taken without entering a vehicle.
The juvenile court was not required to believe appellant's specification of what he intended to steal. The security guard observed appellant and his companion looking inside vehicles. It is reasonable to infer from this action that either entry inside the vehicle was required to take a bumper light, or appellant intended to take something in addition to or other than a bumper light. This is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding.
2. Probation conditions
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in imposing two probation conditions which were not reasonably related to his individual situation. We see no abuse of discretion.
A juvenile court exercises broad discretion in selecting probation conditions. (In re Josue S. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 168, 172.) "The court may impose any reasonable condition that is 'fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced.'" (In re Antonio C. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1033.) "[A] condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it '(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not itself criminal, (3) and requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.'" (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486.) "[I]n planning the conditions of [a 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.)
Appellant objects to condition number 16 which prohibits appellant from being in possession of any dangerous or deadly weapon or remaining in the presence of anyone known to him to be unlawfully armed, and condition number 45 which prohibits appellant from being in possession of any lighters, matches or other incendiary devices including cigarettes. He contends that nothing in the current crime or his background suggests that he was at risk of possessing weapons or smoking materials.
The probation report in this case shows serious concern about appellant's increasing delinquency and criminal activity. Thus, the trial court reasonably was concerned about that possibility. Ordering appellant not to possess deadly or dangerous weapons is a valid and reasonable means to prevent further escalation of appellant's delinquent behavior. Since appellant is under 18, he cannot legally purchase cigarettes. (Pen. Code, § 308, subd. (b).) Prohibiting appellant from committing a crime is not unreasonable. While it would not be illegal for appellant to possess matches or a lighter, there would seem to be no legitimate reason for him to do so.
Disposition
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.
We concur: TURNER, P. J. KRIEGLER, J.