Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 08NF0322, Gary S. Paer, Judge.
Sachi Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon and Theodore M. Cropley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P.J.
A jury convicted defendant Latonya Rochelle Scott of possession of an assault weapon (Pen. Code, § 12280, subd. (b)). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on three years’ probation. Defendant appeals from several of the gang conditions imposed as violating due process. The Attorney General agrees with some of her contentions and we revise the conditions to require knowledge on her part. We disagree with defendant’s contention that a probation condition prohibiting her from possessing “weapons of any kind, including... knives of any description” is vague or overbroad because the condition should be interpreted to prohibit the possession of knives that could be used as weapons. With the noted changes, we affirm the judgment. In light of the issues raised on appeal, we need not recite the facts supporting defendant’s conviction.
DISCUSSION
Conditions 9 and 10 of the Gang Terms Addendum state: “Do not associate with any member of the Blvd. Mafia Crips gang or any other gang, as directed by your probation officer” and “[d]o not remain in any vehicle wherein anyone possesses a weapon, ammunition or weapon replica.” As the Attorney General notes, in In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890, the California Supreme Court held that a condition of probation ‘“must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is require do him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated....’ [Citation.]” As framed, the two conditions do not satisfy these tests unless they are modified to include a knowledge requirement. We agree with defendant and the Attorney General that they should be modified to read: “Do not associate with anyone you know to be a member of the Blvd. Mafia Crips gang or any other gang, as directed by your probation officer” and “[d]o not remain in any vehicle wherein you know that anyone possesses a weapon, ammunition or weapons replica.”
Two other conditions also need to be changed. Conditions 12 and 13 of the Gang Terms Addendum state: “Do not remain in any vehicle either as a passenger or driver which know or suspect to be stolen” and “[d]o not possess, nor remain in the presence of one you know or suspect to possess any master key, lock picks, dent[]puller, ‘slim jim, ’ slide hammer, or other device you know to be an auto theft or burglary tool.” The “or suspect” must be stricken from both conditions. Again the Attorney General agrees and with defendant’s reliance on People v. Gabriel (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1070, which held that the word “suspect” lacks sufficient specificity and thus “fails to provide defendant with adequate notice of what is expected of him when he lacks actual knowledge....” (Id. at p. 1073.)
Finally defendant argues that the condition she “not possess weapons of any kind, including but not limited to, firearms, knives of any description, nunchakus and martial arts weaponry” is overbroad, if it prohibits her from possessing all knives. We might agree, were the condition so interpreted. But the prohibition is “not to possess weapons of any kind.” This qualifies the term “knives” to knives that may be used as weapons and, as such, the term is not overbroad.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed as modified herein.
WE CONCUR: O’LEARY, J., IKOLA, J.