legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Andre M.
The District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed a petition alleging that defendant and appellant Andre M. (Andre) came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 because he committed second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. The juvenile court found the allegation to be true, sustained the petition, and declared the offense to be a felony. The juvenile court placed Andre on home probation in the care custody and control of his parents under the supervision of the Probation Department for a five year maximum period of physical confinement. Among the terms and conditions of Andres probation is the condition that he is not to associate with anyone your parents disapprove of and that he is to stay away from places where users [of narcotics or controlled substances] congregate.
On appeal, Andre contends that the conditions of his probation that he is not to associate with persons his parents disprove of and he is to stay away from places where persons who use narcotics or controlled substances congregate are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because they do not address knowing conduct. That is, the terms do not bar his knowing association with persons his parents disapprove of or require him to stay away from places where he knows persons who use narcotics or controlled substances congregate. These conditions, Andre contends, should be modified to include the element of knowledge. Court hold that the challenged terms are unconstitutionally vague and order the order declaring Andre to be a ward of the court modified to reflect that Andre is not to associate with persons he knows his parents disapprove of and is to stay away from places where he knows persons who use narcotics or controlled substances congregate.
Court requested the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the issue of whether the trial court erred in setting a maximum period of confinement when it placed Andre in his parents custody. The parties agree that the trial court erred in setting a maximum period of confinement. Court order the five year maximum period of confinement struck from the order declaring Andre to be a ward of the court.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale