In re A.L. CA6

Filed 5/20/14 In re A.L. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re A.L., a Person Coming Under the H039489 Juvenile Court Law. (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. J45556)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.L. was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court following contested hearings. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) On appeal from the juvenile court’s dispositional order, he contends that two of his conditions of probation are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We modify the dispositional order as discussed below and affirm the order as modified. I. BACKGROUND A juvenile wardship petition was filed against A.L. on December 20, 2012. The petition alleged that A.L. had committed two felonies--robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 and battery resulting in the infliction of serious bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (d). On February 7, 2013, the district attorney filed an amended wardship petition. In addition to armed robbery and battery, the amended wardship petition charged A.L. with a third felony--assault by means of force likely to

produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4). All of the charges arose from an incident in which A.L. and a friend beat up a man and stole his wallet. A.L. denied all of the charges. On March 15, 2013, following a two-day contested jurisdiction hearing, the court found all three allegations to be true and sustained the amended petition. The defense successfully moved to reduce the violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4) to a misdemeanor. On March 29, 2013, the court declared A.L. a ward of the juvenile court and committed him to the Monterey County Youth Center for one year. The court imposed 36 probation conditions. Condition No. 12 requires A.L. “not to have direct or indirect contact with [the] victim . . . [and to s]tay at least 100 yards away from the victim, victim’s residence, vehicle, school, and place of employment.” Condition No. 27 requires that A.L. “not be on any school campus or within a one block radius of any school campus unless enrolled or with prior administrative permission from school authorities.” A.L. filed a timely notice of appeal on April 2, 2013. II. DISCUSSION On appeal, A.L. raises constitutional challenges to probation conditions No. 12 and No. 27. He did not object to either condition in the juvenile court. A court of appeal may review the constitutionality of a probation condition, even when it has not been challenged in the trial court, if the question can be resolved as a matter of law without reference to the sentencing record. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888-889.) Thus, we can consider facial challenges to the constitutionality of probation conditions not objected to below, as such challenges “do[] not require scrutiny of individual facts and circumstances but instead require[] the review of abstract and generalized legal concepts.” (Id. at p. 885.) Our review is de novo. (In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143.)