Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. INJ020294, Charles Everett Stafford, Jr., Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Kevin D. Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr., and Angela M. Borzachillo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RAMIREZ, P. J.
Defendant and appellant M.M. (minor), was found by the juvenile court to have committed grand theft by taking property from the person of another (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)) and was placed on probation. He challenges one of his probation conditions on multiple grounds. We modify the probation condition and affirm the judgment.
THE CHALLENGED CONDITION
“Not associate with individuals who are known gang members, or with persons engaged in graffiti or related activities.”
DISCUSSION
Minor suggests a revision as follows: Not associate with individuals the minor knows to be members of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subds. (e), (f)) or with persons the minor knows to be engaged in illegal or unauthorized graffiti or related activities.
Minor’s suggestion is based upon his contentions that the graffiti provision does not include a knowledge requirement, the graffiti provision would bar lawful graffiti, the use of “known” in the gang portion is not specific as to minor’s knowledge, and “gang” is not specific as to criminal gangs.
“A probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad.” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890.)
Requiring minor to refrain from associating infringes on his constitutional right of freedom of association. (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.; see also People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 102.) Consequently, conditions must be narrowly tailored. The state interest for which the conditions must be narrowly tailored is minor’s rehabilitation. (People v. Hackler (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1058.)
The state’s interest in rehabilitation would not be served by punishing minor for associating with people who, unknown to him, are gang members or engaged in graffiti-related activities. Rehabilitation would also not be served by punishing minor for associating with persons who are engaged in lawful graffiti art, or who are members of a lawful association of persons that may be referred to as a “gang” but is not a criminal street gang. (See, e.g., People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 638 [reference to “gang” modified to include definition of “criminal street gang” in Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (f)].)
Accordingly, the condition should be modified.
DISPOSITION
The graffiti and gang association condition of minor’s probation is modified to read: “Not associate with individuals whom he knows to be members of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subds. (e), (f)) or with persons whom he knows to be engaged in illegal or unauthorized graffiti or related activities.”
The superior court is directed to file amended minutes or an amended probation order, or both, to reflect these modifications.
In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, J., MILLER, J.