In Re HC

175 Cal.App.4th 1067 (2009) In re H.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

H.C., Defendant and Appellant.

No. H033669. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.

July 14, 2009. [1069] Marsanne Weese, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan and Martin S. Kaye, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

RUSHING, P. J.—

This appeal is taken under Welfare and Institutions Code section 800, subdivision (a) and the minor H.C. appeals from the dispositional order in a juvenile court proceeding pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.

A wardship petition filed October 10, 2008, alleged that the ward carried a concealed weapon and a loaded firearm. The minor admitted to violating Penal Code section 12025, subdivision (a)(2), a felony, and all other counts were dismissed. He was placed on probation for three years and an order was signed by the trial judge. The probation order, a preprinted form, is of three pages and contains 35 conditions.

DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts the probation conditions related to his gang association are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

(1) While defendant did not object to the probation conditions when they were imposed in the juvenile court, we do not deem the issue waived on [1070] appeal. In In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889 [55 Cal.Rptr.3d 716, 153 P.3d 282], the California Supreme Court held in a juvenile case that a failure to object to a probation condition on the ground that it is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad is not waived on appeal. We apply the same rule to this case.