In re T.L.
Filed 8/15/07 In re T.L. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re T.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.L., Defendant and Appellant. | E041934 (Super.Ct.No. J211036) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Margaret A. Powers, Judge. Affirmed.
Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Koch, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant and defendant T.L. (minor) admitted as true the allegation that he committed the crime of attempted residential burglary. (Pen. Code, 664/459.)[1] The juvenile court declared minor a ward of the court, placed him in the custody of his grandmother on probation under certain terms and conditions. On appeal, minor contends that the court abused its discretion in imposing gang-related probation conditions. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The victim was at home with her infant child when minor vigorously knocked on her front door. The victim saw minor through the peephole, but did not open the door because she felt threatened by him. Assuming no one was home, minor went to the back of the house and tried to pry open the sliding glass door with a screwdriver. The victim saw him and yelled. Minor ran away leaving his footprints in the victims yard. The police later caught minor, searched his bedroom, and found shoes that matched the footprints and a screwdriver hidden under his mattress.
Minor was charged with attempted residential burglary. ( 664/459.) He admitted the allegation, and the court placed him on probation. Upon the recommendation of the probation officer, the court imposed five gang-related conditions, since minor admitted that some of his friends had been arrested, and some of them were gang-affiliated. He also admitted associating with two gangs in Compton. The gang-related probation conditions required minor to:
28. Not possess, wear, use or display any item prohibited by the probation officer, including but not limited to any insignia, emblem . . . or any article of clothing, hand sign or paraphernalia associated with membership or affiliation in any gang[;]
29. Not be outside his/her home between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., unless accompanied by and in the immediate supervision of his/her parent or guardian, or with the prior approval of the probation officer[;]
30. Not be present in any gang gathering area as specified by the probation officer[;]
31. Not appear at any court building . . . unless [he] is a party, defendant or subpoenaed as a witness to a court proceeding[; and]
32. Attend a gang intervention program as directed by the probation officer.
Defense counsel objected to all five conditions. The court stated that the terms were appropriate if minor was associating with gang members, and noted that the terms would discourage him from joining a gang. The court did modify the curfew condition to start at 9:00 p.m., instead of 8:00 p.m., since minor was 17 years old. Otherwise, the court imposed the conditions as written.
ANALYSIS
The Court Properly Imposed the Gang-Related Probation Conditions
Minor contends that the gang-related conditions, minus the curfew condition, must be stricken as unnecessary since there was no risk of him joining a gang or becoming involved in any gang-related activities. He specifically argues that the condition prohibiting him from appearing in any court building is invalid since it denies him his fundamental right of access to government and violates his First Amendment rights. We conclude that the court properly imposed the gang-related conditions.
Trial courts have broad discretion to set conditions of probation in order to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1. [Citations.] . . . [] However, the trial courts discretion in setting the conditions of probation is not unbounded. (People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 624 (Lopez).) A term of probation is invalid if it: (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 (Lent), italics added.)
Here, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the gang-related conditions. Prohibitions against a variety of gang-related activities have been upheld when imposed upon juvenile offenders. [Citations.] (Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 624.) [P]robation terms have been approved which bar minors from being present at gang gathering areas, associating with gang members, and wearing gang clothing. [Citation.] (Ibid.) Because [a]ssociation with gang members is the first step to involvement in gang activity, such conditions have been found to be reasonably designed to prevent future criminal behavior. [Citation.] (Ibid.)
Minors probation report disclosed that he admitted some of his friends are affiliated with gangs, and that he associated with two gangs in Compton the Sixties and the Nutty Bloc Cripps. Minors admitted gang affiliation, combined with his impressionable age and the fact that he started to commit crimes, certainly warranted the courts concern that he was in danger of falling under the influence of a gang. The imposition of the gang-related conditions was thus a reasonable preventive measure in helping him to avoid future criminality and to set him on a productive course. (In re Laylah K. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1496, 1502 (Laylah K.).) Moreover, as the court stated, the terms were not punitive and were being imposed to simply help minor keep away from gangs.
Minor concedes that there are two hints that he may have some gang involvement: 1) some of his schoolmates were gang members, and 2) he knew gang members in Compton. However, he dismisses these affiliations as inconsequential and contends that his mere association with gang members did not justify the gang-related terms. This contention is shortsighted. (See Laylah K., supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1501.) As stated above, [a]ssociation with gang members is the first step to involvement in gang activity. (Ibid.)
Minor further argues that the condition prohibiting him from appearing in any court building is invalid since it denies him his fundamental right to access to government. He asserts that courthouses have different offices for tax collection, marriage licenses, recording deeds, animal licenses, and professional licenses, and that he should not be restricted from conducting routine government business at courthouses, or from attending events such as weddings at courthouses. He also notes that courthouses are typically places where people gather to exercise their First Amendment rights; thus, this condition impinges on his constitutional rights. Trial courts have broad discretion to set conditions of probation in order to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1. [Citations.] If it serves these dual purposes, a probation condition may impinge upon a constitutional right otherwise enjoyed by the probationer, who is not entitled to the same degree of constitutional protection as other citizens. [Citation.] (Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 624.) We note that minor is only 17 years old, and it is unlikely that he would have to conduct much, if any, of the routine government business that he cites.
Minor also contends that the fact that some gang members may try to intimidate witnesses involved in court proceedings with gangs is not enough to justify restricting gang members access to courthouses. Case law has held just the opposite. The restriction on court attendance is aimed at preventing the gathering of gang members to intimidate witnesses at court proceedings. . . . [This condition is] reasonably designed to address the problem of gang affiliation. (Laylah K., supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1502.)
In sum, the gang-related conditions simply directed minor to refrain from gang association and were a reasonable preventive measure in avoiding future criminality.
(See Laylah K., supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1502.) The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing them.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ HOLLENHORST
Acting P.J.
We concur:
/s/ KING
J.
/s/ MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
