In re D.G
Filed 7/30/10
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
In re D.G.,
a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A126655
(Alameda
County
Super. Ct.
No. SJ09012052-02)
Appellant
D.G., a ward of the court, was placed on juvenile
probation after he and another person were seen burglarizing a home. Neither appellant's current burglary nor his
past offenses were committed near a school or involved classmates or other
juveniles. Yet in imposing probation,
the juvenile court included a condition prohibiting appellant from coming
within 150 feet of any school campus other than the school he is
attending. Appellant contends the
imposition of this condition was an abuse of the court's discretion because it
is unrelated to his current or past offenses or to his possible future
criminality and is vague and overbroad, thereby improperly burdening his constitutional right to travel.
We
conclude the condition as drawn was unreasonable because it is not related to
appellant's offenses and does not prohibit otherwise criminal conduct and because there is no
evidence in the record to suggest the condition will serve a rehabilitative
purpose by preventing his future criminality.
We narrow the condition consistent with state law that prohibits persons
from visiting school grounds without notifying school authorities and affirm
the court's dispositional order as so modified.
I. BACKGROUND
On
August 26, 2009, the Alameda
County District Attorney filed a wardship petition under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging appellant
committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and received stolen property
(Pen. Code, § 496). The evidence at
trial demonstrated that appellant and another person forced open the back door
of an Oakland home while the
residents were away.[1] The two later emerged with a camera and a
safe, ran away as police arrived, and eventually were found hiding nearby.
The
juvenile court found the allegations of the wardship petition to be true. The probation department's dispositional
report recommended appellant, who had already been declared a ward of the court
as a result of earlier offenses, be placed under probation, subject to several
conditions. One of the recommended
conditions would prohibit appellant from being â€
| Description | Appellant D.G., a ward of the court, was placed on juvenile probation after he and another person were seen burglarizing a home. Neither appellant's current burglary nor his past offenses were committed near a school or involved classmates or other juveniles. Yet in imposing probation, the juvenile court included a condition prohibiting appellant from coming within 150 feet of any school campus other than the school he is attending. Appellant contends the imposition of this condition was an abuse of the court's discretion because it is unrelated to his current or past offenses or to his possible future criminality and is vague and overbroad, thereby improperly burdening his constitutional right to travel. We conclude the condition as drawn was unreasonable because it is not related to appellant's offenses and does not prohibit otherwise criminal conduct and because there is no evidence in the record to suggest the condition will serve a rehabilitative purpose by preventing his future criminality. We narrow the condition consistent with state law that prohibits persons from visiting school grounds without notifying school authorities and affirm the court's dispositional order as so modified. |
| Rating |
