In re A.L. CA6

Filed 9/19/13 In re A.L. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re A.L., a Person Coming Under the H038840 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV39127)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.L. was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court after he admitted two counts of felony vandalism valued at over $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)), a count of felony carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (former Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(4), now § 21310), a count of possession of alcohol by a minor (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25662), a count of possession of burglar’s tools (Pen. Code, § 466), and two counts of misdemeanor vandalism (id. § 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A)). The juvenile court initially placed A.L. on probation, subject to numerous terms and conditions. A Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 petition was filed, alleging that A.L. violated his probation.1 A.L. admitted the violation, and after a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court continued A.L. as a ward of the court and ordered him to remain on probation and

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

participate in the Pathways to Excellence, Achievement and Knowledge (PEAK) program. A.L. appeals the order finding that he violated his probation, and the order continuing him on probation with the requirement that he participate in the PEAK program. A.L. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering his participation in the PEAK program, that the juvenile court failed to affirmatively state on the record whether some of his admitted offenses constituted felonies or misdemeanors, and that two of his probation conditions require modification to include a knowledge requirement. For the following reasons, we modify the challenged probation conditions and remand to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of declaring on the record whether A.L.’s offenses were felonies or misdemeanors. In all other respects, the juvenile court’s order is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A.L.’s underlying crimes arise from several incidents of vandalism that occurred in Sunnyvale and San Jose. On separate occasions, A.L. was seen tagging the word “Reso” on walls, a freeway sign, street signs, and newspaper racks. After one incident, A.L. was searched by officers after he was seen tagging a sound wall in Sunnyvale, and was found to be in possession of a knife. In addition to the acts of vandalism, A.L. was once seen stealing a soda cup from a Subway restaurant. Officers searched A.L. afterwards and found him in possession of beer and a spring-loaded window punch that can be used to commit burglaries. A.L. admitted to consuming alcohol on a regular basis. The People filed a petition pursuant to section 602 charging A.L. with numerous offenses. On June 11, 2012, A.L. admitted two counts of felony vandalism valued at over $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)), a count of felony carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (former Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(4)), a count of possession of alcohol by a minor (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25662), a count of possession of burglar’s tools (Pen. Code,