In re Stephan D. CA5

Filed 12/13/13 In re Stephan D. CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re STEPHAN D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F067367

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JW112369-00)

v. STEPHAN D., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Peter A. Warmerdam, Referee. R. Randall Riccardo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Ward A. Campbell and Sean M. McCoy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Oakley, J.†

† Judge of the Superior Court of Madera County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

The court found that appellant, Stephan D., was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 after it sustained allegations charging him with sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (e)(1)). On appeal, appellant challenges the juvenile court’s failure to place him on non-wardship probation pursuant to section 725, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 725(a)) and he contends that one of his conditions of probation is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We find that the challenged probation condition does not meet certain statutory requirements and modify it so it does. As modified, we affirm the judgment. FACTS The Jurisdiction Hearing At appellant’s jurisdiction hearing, 16-year-old L.R. testified that she attended Foothill High School in Kern County. On or about February 21, 2013, she was walking to her sixth period class when appellant walked up behind her, reached between her left arm and body with his right arm, and squeezed her left breast with his right hand through her clothing. L.R. turned around to try to hit appellant and he moved back and started laughing. L.R. told appellant it was not funny and that what he did was not right. Appellant did not apologize or say anything else. L.R. and appellant were good friends and had previously hugged each other side to side about five times, but appellant had never touched her like that before. L.R. was upset and crying as she continued walking to her class. Campus Police Officer Gilbert Valdez testified that after sixth period he spoke with L.R. about the incident and that L.R. was upset and crying at the time. Valdez spoke with appellant the day after the incident. Valdez advised appellant of his Miranda2 rights