From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re U.A.

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Jan 28, 2009
No. H033078 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2009)

Opinion


In re U.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. U.A., Defendant and Appellant. H033078 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District January 28, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV33580

RUSHING, P.J.

The juvenile court placed appellant U.A. in a ranch program after sustaining allegations that he violated conduct orders entered in an earlier adjudication and that he committed an assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. He appeals from that order, contending that the court erred by omitting any requirement of scienter from a probation condition forbidding him to exhibit gang insignia. Respondent concedes the error. We accept the concession. We will therefore direct a modification of the probation condition to prohibit the knowing exhibition of gang insignia.

Background

The underlying facts are not in dispute. After having been made a ward of the juvenile court on an earlier petition, appellant was charged with violating the terms of probation in that matter and, by supplemental petition, with conduct amounting to aggravated assault. The court took testimony about an incident in which appellant, in the company of two others, attacked a youth while armed with a knife. The court sustained the petition, and appellant admitted probation violations consisting of positive tests for marijuana and cocaine, violations of probation, and refusal to obey his mother. In its dispositional order, the court adopted the recommendations of the probation department, which included a directive that appellant not “possess, display, wear any insignia, clothing, logos, paraphernalia which identifies any gang membership or affiliation.”

Discussion

Appellant contends that the quoted probation condition is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad “because it is not limited to possessing or wearing items that [U.] knows are gang-affiliated.” (Italics in original.) He contends that such an omission requires modification on appeal. Respondent concedes the argument, which appears well taken. (See In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 891-892; In re Vincent G. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 238, 245; In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 816.) We accept the concession, and direct a modification accordingly.

Disposition

The order appealed from is modified to provide that appellant shall not possess, display, or wear any insignia, clothing, logo, or paraphernalia known to him to signify membership in or affiliation with any street gang. As so modified, the order is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.


Summaries of

In re U.A.

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Jan 28, 2009
No. H033078 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2009)
Case details for

In re U.A.

Case Details

Full title:In re U.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Jan 28, 2009

Citations

No. H033078 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2009)