In re T.M. CA3

Filed 9/26/13 In re T.M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

In re T.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, C071746

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JD-12-94)

v.

T.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant T.M., a minor, pleaded no contest to committing a misdemeanor curfew violation and violating park curfew, an infraction. The juvenile court adjudged him a ward of the court and placed him on probation with various terms and conditions. On appeal, the minor challenges the imposition of certain gang-related conditions of probation, and contends the court erred in imposing a restitution fine in excess of the $100 statutory maximum (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (b)(2)). We reduce the restitution fine to $100, add to the gang-related conditions a reference to the definition of

1

criminal street gang contained in Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (f) and otherwise affirm the order of the juvenile court. BACKGROUND Officers investigating the report of a gang fight in Woodland saw the minor standing on the street corner. An officer spoke with the minor and asked (among others) whether he had any weapons. The minor responded that he had a taser. In his pockets, officers found the taser, a cigar, and a lighter. A petition was filed in case JD-12-94, alleging that the minor is a person within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 because he possessed a stun gun (a misdemeanor), violated city curfew (a misdemeanor), violated park curfew (an infraction), and possessed tobacco products (an infraction). While that petition was pending, a second petition was filed in case JD-12-160, alleging that the minor committed second degree burglary and received stolen property. The minor pleaded no contest to violating city curfew (a misdemeanor), and violating park curfew (an infraction), in exchange for dismissal of the other allegations in case JD-12-94, and all allegations of JD-12-160. He was remanded to the custody of his father and placed on probation. Among the conditions of probation, the court directed the minor to “[s]tay away from anyone you know or Probation tells [you] is a gang member. Do not possess or have under your control any gang colors or gang paraphernalia. Do not use gang signs.” The court also imposed a restitution fine of $130, of which $110 goes to the “state restitution fund” and $20 represents a “collection fee.” DISCUSSION I The Probation Conditions are Neither Invalid nor Unconstitutional Over the minor’s objections, the trial court imposed the gang-related conditions of probation quoted above. On appeal, the minor contends these conditions (1) are invalid because they are not justified by the circumstances of his crimes or his social history, and