In re A.G. CA1/1

Filed 5/13/14 In re A.G. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re A.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.G., A140138 Defendant and Appellant. (Napa County Super. Ct. No. JV17378)

Defendant A.G. appeals from a dispositional order placing him on probation subject to certain conditions. He maintains four of the conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; two because they do not define the term “criminal street gang,” one because its prohibition of new piercings is assertedly overbroad, and one because its prohibition of being within 100 yards of a school during school hours is assertedly vague and overbroad. We conclude “criminal street gang” needs additional definition, the prohibition of new piercings is overbroad, and the school condition should include a knowledge requirement. As modified, we affirm. BACKGROUND We set forth only the facts pertinent to the issues on appeal. In February 2013, the Napa County District Attorney filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging A.G. possessed marijuana for sale and had sold or transported

1

marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11359, 11360, subd. (a).) A.G. admitted selling $10 worth of marijuana to another student at his middle school and admitted both counts. The court granted deferred entry of judgment and placed him on probation. In April 2013, the district attorney filed a supplemental petition alleging A.G. had disturbed the peace in association with a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 415, 186.22, subd. (d).) A.G. admitted this allegation, amended to allege a misdemeanor offense. Five months later, in September 2013, the district attorney filed another supplemental petition alleging A.G. had resisted or obstructed a police officer and violated the terms of his probation by associating with gang members and violating curfew. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777.) After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found the obstruction count true and the prosecutor withdrew the probation violation count. The juvenile court reinstated probation and re- imposed all previously imposed probation conditions. DISCUSSION A.G. claims four of the probation conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. He maintains conditions 11 and 12 are vague because they do not define the term “criminal street gang,” condition 11 is overbroad because it lacks a knowledge requirement, condition 13 is overbroad because it bars him from obtaining any new body piercings, and condition 15 is overbroad because it bars him from being within 100 yards of any school.1 “A juvenile court is vested with broad discretion to select appropriate probation conditions. [Citation.] The court may impose any reasonable condition that is ‘fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced.’ ([Welf & Inst. Code,] § 730, subd. (b).) A condition of probation