In re David J.
]
Filed 6/1/06 In re David J. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| In re DAVID J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B184214 (L.A.Super.Ct. No. JJ 12926) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID J., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. S. Robert Ambrose, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Modified in part with directions and affirmed in part.
________
Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________
The juvenile court declared David J. a delinquent ward after the court found that he battered and threatened a witness. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a); Pen. Code, §§ 242, 140, subd. (a); all further undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) The court placed David home on probation on condition, among others, that he not (1) associate with anyone disapproved of by his parents or probation officer, (2) use or possess drugs, and stay away from places where drug users congregate, and (3) possess weapons or be in the presence of any unlawfully armed person.
David appeals, contending that (I) insufficient evidence supports the finding that he threatened a witness; (II) the three probation conditions must be modified so that they apply only to (1) people David knows are disapproved of by his parents and probation officer, (2) places David knows drug users congregate, and (3) people David knows are illegally armed; (III) the minute order must be modified to reflect that the court dismissed a third allegation that he attempted to dissuade the witness from testifying (Pen.Code, § 136.1, subd. (a)(2)) (the Attorney General concedes this issue); (IV) the maximum confinement time listed in the minutes must be stricken because the court did not determine the maximum confinement time since it placed David home on probation.
We reject contention (I) but agree with contentions (II)-(IV). We modify the challenged probation conditions as David requests and strike the finding that he attempted to dissuade the witness from testifying and the maximum confinement time. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment (order of wardship).
FACTS
At about 3:00 p.m. on May 12, 2005, Josue P., then 13 years old, was leaving school when a group of people, including David, surrounded him. David, then 15 years old, twice asked Josue why he had â€
