In re Miguel G.
Filed 8/30/06 In re Miguel G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 MIGUEL G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B181244 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ34068) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MIGUEL G., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Millie Escobedo, Juvenile Court Referee. Modified and affirmed.
Patricia A. Andreoni, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Mary Sanchez and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Miguel G. appeals from the order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 entered after the court determined that he committed three counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459[1]; counts 3, 6, 9), three counts of vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a); counts 4, 7, 10), three counts of vehicle tampering (Veh. Code, § 10852; counts 5, 8, 11) and one count of possession of burglary tools (§ 466; count 15).[2] The court declared counts 3, 6 and 9 to be felonies and counts 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 15 to be misdemeanors. The court ordered defendant placed home on probation subject to various conditions and calculated his maximum term of confinement to be six years.
Defendant contends the court violated section 654 when calculating his maximum term of confinement. He also contends that probation condition 15, which precludes him from associating with persons disapproved of by his parent or probation officer, and condition 21, which prohibits him from using or possessing narcotics and requires him to stay away from places where drug users congregate, are constitutionally overbroad and must be modified to include a knowledge requirement. For the reasons set forth below, we strike the court's maximum term of confinement calculation and modify the probation conditions. In all other respects, we affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of November 13, 2005, Victor Garay heard noises outside his apartment in Los Angeles. He looked outside and saw two individuals break into two vehicles. He could not see their faces but could see their clothes. Garay called the police.
Los Angeles Police Officer Guillermo Calleros, along with his partner Officer Jurado, responded to the radio call regarding the vehicle burglaries. Near the intersection of 36th Street and San Pedro, Officer Calleros saw defendant and Francisco O., who matched the description of the burglary suspects. Defendant made eye contact with Officer Calleros, after which defendant threw some shiny objects onto a grassy area. Defendant and Francisco O. then walked away in different directions. The police detained them.
Officer Jurado recovered the items defendant had discarded. He found vice grips and a screwdriver, both of which could be used to burglarize cars. According to Officer Calleros, the vice grips could be used to break a window while the screwdriver could be used to punch an ignition. A pat down search of defendant yielded three car keys with the tips bent off. A similar search of Francisco O. revealed a screwdriver in his pants pocket.
An officer picked up Garay for a field identification. Garay could not recognize defendant's and Francisco O.'s faces but did recognize their clothing.
An examination of the vehicles in the surrounding area revealed a Ford Expedition with a broken window and glass inside, a Mazda with a broken window and glass inside, and a Toyota Corolla with a smashed window.[3] Documents pertaining to the Toyota were found on the ground. Each vehicle had been in good condition the night before. Neither defendant nor Francisco O. had permission to break the windows of, or to enter or use, any of these vehicles.
Defendant presented an alibi defense.
DISCUSSION
Maximum Term of Confinement
As observed in In re David H. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1131, â€
