In re Rena H
Filed 6/19/06 In re Rena H. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| In re RENA H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B183086 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ35620) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RENA H., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shep Zebberman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed as Modified.
Gerald Peters, 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, Ana R. Duarte and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Rena H. appeals from the juvenile court's orders declaring her a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,[1] and placing her on probation. Appellant challenges the condition of her probation that forbids her from associating with anyone disapproved of by her parent, probation officer, or the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). She contends the condition is unconstitutional because it lacks the element of knowledge. For reasons discussed herein, we agree and therefore modify the challenged condition.
Procedural Background
In February 2005, the District Attorney of Orange County filed a section 602 petition alleging that appellant committed an unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and made a false representation to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)). After appellant admitted both allegations, the juvenile court declared her a ward of the court and imposed the maximum term of confinement, one year and two months. The case was transferred to Los Angeles County for disposition. In March, the juvenile court placed appellant on probation for six months and released her into the custody of DCFS, allotting her presentence custody credit of 41 days. The juvenile court also imposed, among other conditions, condition number 15 which states, â€
