Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ14185 Charles Scarlett and Donna Groman, Judges.
Kiana Sloan-Hillier, 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, Margaret E. Maxwell and Lance E. Winters, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WILLHITE, J.
V.B. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding by the court that he committed second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) He was placed home on probation on various terms and conditions and contends condition number 21, that he stay away from places were narcotics users congregate, must be modified. For reasons stated in the opinion, we modify that condition and affirm the order of wardship.
Initially, the court granted a deferred entry of judgment but the order was thereafter vacated as illegal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On June 13, 2006, Joseph Hunter was on the front porch of his residence on 81st Place in Los Angeles when he saw four young men, one being appellant, approaching. Two of them pushed past Mr. Hunter. When Mr. Hunter asked the two where they were going, one pulled out a gun and pointed it at Mr. Hunter’s face and told him to back off. Mr. Hunter put his hands up and said, “Okay.”
While two of the young men were in the house, appellant stayed outside with Mr. Hunter. Although appellant kept his hands under his shirt as though he had a gun, he kept assuring Mr. Hunter, “We’re not going to do anything.” The fourth young man stood west of Mr. Hunter’s property, in the neighbor’s driveway.
Keeping his hands in the air, Mr. Hunter waved to a neighbor who was outside. When the neighbor appeared to make a call on his cell phone, the young man on the driveway yelled something to the effect of “Let’s go.” The two young men in the house ran out of the door and all four young men ran down the street.
After the police arrived, Mr. Hunter went back into his home and noticed drawers were open and jewelry and other items were missing.
Following waiver of his Miranda rights, appellant stated he had been with the other minors who robbed Mr. Hunter.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends probation condition number 21, that appellant stay away from places narcotics users congregate, must be modified to include a knowledge requirement. Specifically, he contends the condition must be modified to state that appellant is ordered to stay away from places where he knows drug users congregate. Respondent agrees. As the appropriate remedy is to modify the condition to include a knowledge requirement (see In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 891-892), we will do so.
DISPOSITION
Probation condition number 21 is modified to read, “Do not use or possess narcotics, controlled substances, poisons, or related paraphernalia; stay away from places you know to be where users congregate.” In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P.J. MANELLA, J.