In re G.M. CA4/1

Filed 3/5/26 In re G.M. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

THE PEOPLE, D084997

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. J245447)

G.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marissa Bejarano, Judge. Affirmed. Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Genevieve Herbert, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. G.M., a juvenile, appeals a probation condition imposed by the juvenile court on constitutional vagueness and overbreadth grounds and under People

v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). He also contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the probation condition. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND G.M. was charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, with allegations of inflicting great bodily injury and using a deadly or dangerous weapon during the commission of a felony. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).) At a hearing in July 2024, G.M. admitted to felony assault after voluntarily waiving his constitutional rights. (Id., § 245, subd. (a)(1).) At a contested disposition hearing in August 2024, the juvenile court placed him on probation. As part of the imposed probation conditions, the trial court ordered that G.M. “not use, sell or possess alcohol, drugs, drug paraphernalia, harmful intoxicants, non-prescribed medications, or any type of mind-altering substances.” Defense counsel objected to the commitment program suggested by probation but did not object to any of the probation conditions. In October 2024, G.M.’s appointed counsel timely appealed the August 2024 disposition order. DISCUSSION On appeal, G.M. challenges the condition prohibiting “use, [sale], or [possession] of . . . non-prescribed medications,” arguing that (1) the condition is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, (2) the condition is invalid under the standard set forth in Lent, and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the condition. We address each argument in turn.