In re C.P.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 10/17/13  In re C.P. CA6

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

> 

California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b).  This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.

 

 

 

IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

 
>

In re C.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	H039480      (Santa Clara County       Super. Ct. No. JV39788)
THE PEOPLE,   Plaintiff and Respondent,   v.   C.P.,   Defendant and Appellant.

            The
juvenile court found C.P. (minor) to be a person described by Welfare and
Institutions Code section 602 (wardship for violation of law) in that he
committed battery on a cohabitant.  It
placed minor on probation with conditions. 
On appeal, minor contends that two conditions are href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">unconstitutionally vague.  The People concede that the two conditions
should be modified, and we agree that the concession is appropriate.  We therefore modify the conditions and affirm
the order for probation.

background

            The order
for probation states condition No. “3. 
That said minor not be on or adjacent to any school campus unless
enrolled or with prior administrative approval,” and condition No. “12.  That said minor shall not come within 300
yards of the protected person.”

discussion

            Minor
contends that condition No. 3 is unconstitutionally vague because the term
“adjacent to” does not give adequate notice as to the distance “adjacent to”
covers.  In People v. Barajas (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 748, we modified a similar
condition on the People’s recommendation to specify a stay-away distance of 50
feet.  Here, minor recommends a greater
stay-away distance of one block.  We will
so modify the condition.

            Minor
contends that condition Nos. 3 and 12 are unconstitutionally vague because
there is no “knowledge” element.  The
obvious jurisprudential trend is toward requiring that a term or condition of
probation explicitly require knowledge on the part of the probationer that he
or she is in violation of the term in order for it to withstand a challenge for
unconstitutional vagueness.  “[P]robation
conditions that implicate constitutional rights must be narrowly drawn” and the
knowledge requirement in these circumstances “should not be left to
implication.”  (People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 102.)  We will so modify the conditions.

disposition

            Probation
condition No. 3 is modified as follows: 
“That said minor not knowingly be on or within one block of any school
campus unless enrolled or with prior administrative approval.”  Probation condition No. 12 is modified as
follows:  “That said minor shall not
knowingly come within 300 yards of the protected person.”  As so modified, the order for probation is
affirmed.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                       

Premo,
J.

 

 

 

 

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                       

                        Rushing,
P.J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                       

                        Márquez,
J.