In re K.X. CA5

Filed 6/5/14 In re K.X. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.X., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F068054

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12CEJ600702-2)

v. K.X., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary R. Orozco, Judge. Robert McLaughlin, 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, Carlos A. Martinez and Marcia A. Fay, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Detjen, J.

INTRODUCTION On April 26, 2013, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,1 alleging that appellant, K.X., committed attempted second degree commercial burglary, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 459, 460, subd. (b), count 1). At the conclusion of a contested jurisdiction hearing on July 24, 2013, the juvenile court found the allegation to be true.2 On August 14, 2013, the juvenile court found appellant to be a ward of the court and placed him on probation upon various terms and conditions. The juvenile court ordered that appellant be placed on an electronic monitor not to exceed 45 days and perform 75 hours of community service. The court authorized the probation department to permit appellant to perform up to 50 hours of community service for any violations of probation. Among the conditions of probation ordered by the juvenile court were that appellant obey all laws, “not to consume any alcoholic beverage,” “not to use or possess illegal narcotics or other controlled substances, related paraphernalia or poisons,” and “not to possess any property with the knowledge that such property is stolen.” The court’s minute order concerning the possession of stolen property was slightly different than the order pronounced at the disposition hearing: the minor was “[n]ot to possess property without consent of owner or have knowledge that such property is stolen.” Appellant contends the trial court’s conditions of probation prohibiting drug and alcohol use and the written prohibition for possessing stolen property are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because they all lack a requirement that appellant has knowledge that he is violating the condition.