In re Anthony M.
Filed 8/16/06 In re Anthony M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ANTHONY M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B184208 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ12564) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY M., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEALS from judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, S. Robert Ambrose, Judge. Modified and affirmed.
Bruce G. Finebaum for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant Anthony M., a minor, challenges a condition imposed on his probation as vague and overbroad. We modify the condition and affirm the judgment as modified.
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 1, 2005, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that appellant had assaulted David S. by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,[1] § 245, subd. (a)(1)). On April 5, 2005, a second petition was filed alleging that appellant had committed the offense of possessing a weapon on school grounds (§ 626.10, subd. (a)).
The adjudication hearing on the petitions began on June 14, 2005.
At the hearing, evidence was presented that on December 2, 2004, appellant punched David S. while both were attending the same high school in Los Angeles. Evidence was also presented that on February 4, 2005, an LAPD police officer discovered appellant carrying a knife on the grounds of the high school.
Following the hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petitions and found appellant to be a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. It ordered appellant's placement in a community camp program for a maximum of four years and four months, but stayed this order and imposed probation.
DISCUSSION
Appellant challenges only the conditions of his probation, contending that condition No. 21 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. This condition states: â€
