In re R.K. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Sep 20, 2013 No. B245680Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a juvenile probation condition restricting proximity to school grounds must be modified to include a knowledge element to avoid being unconstitutionally vague. The court further held that the appellant forfeited his challenges regarding the right to travel and the reasonableness of the condition by failing to object in the juvenile court.

Issues

Whether a probation condition prohibiting proximity to school grounds is unconstitutionally vague for lacking a knowledge element.
Whether the appellant forfeited his constitutional challenge to the probation condition by failing to object in the trial court.
Whether the appellant forfeited his challenge to the reasonableness of the probation condition by failing to object in the trial court.

Disposition. Affirmed as modified.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude the condition should be modified to include a knowledge element.”

“Appellant has forfeited his remaining contentions for failure to raise them below.”

“Accordingly, we hold that the condition should be modified so that it includes a knowledge element.”

Filed 9/20/13 In re R.K. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re R.K., a Person Coming Under the B245680 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ36876)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

R.K.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Wayne C. Denton, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed as modified. Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Roberta L. Davis, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________________

Sixteen-year-old appellant R.K. appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court after a finding that he committed battery in violation of Penal Code section 242. Appellant was ordered home on probation on various terms and conditions, including condition number 12 that he “not be within one block of any school ground unless enrolled, attending classes, on approved school business, or with school official, parent or guardian.” Appellant contends that probation condition number 12 is impermissibly vague for failing to include a knowledge element, unreasonably violates his right to travel, and is not reasonably related to the offense. We conclude the condition should be modified to include a knowledge element. Appellant has forfeited his remaining contentions for failure to raise them below. Therefore, we modify the probation condition and otherwise affirm the order of wardship.

In re R.K. CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

KRIEGLER, J.

TURNER, P. J.

MOSK, J.

AI Brief