In re Julio N. CA5

Filed 6/27/14 In re Julio N. CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JULIO N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F067719

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MJL017680)

v. OPINION JULIO N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Thomas L. Bender, Judge. 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, Carlos A. Martinez and Kari Ricci Mueller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Sarkisian, J.† † Judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

INTRODUCTION On April 23, 2012, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that appellant, Julio N., committed the following misdemeanor offenses: throwing a rock at an ambulance (Veh. Code, § 23110, subd. (a), count 1), disobeying a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800, subd. (a), count 2), and resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer or emergency technician (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1), count 3). At the conclusion of a contested jurisdiction hearing on May 31, 2013, the juvenile court found the allegations to be true. On July 19, 2013, the juvenile court found appellant to be a ward of the court and placed him on probation upon various terms and conditions. Among the many conditions of probation, the court ordered appellant “not to be the member of any gang, [or] act in furtherance of, in association with, or for the benefit of any gang.” The court ordered appellant “not to associate with any person known to [him] to be a gang member, and … not to frequent any area where gang members are known by [him] to congregate, or areas known to [him] for gang related activity.” The appellant was ordered “not to wear or possess any clothing or items and display any hand signs [of] gang significance or which are indicia of gang membership including colors, symbols, insignias, numbers, monikers, and patterns, which are known to [him] to be such and as may be identified as such by law enforcement or probation officers.” The court also ordered appellant “not to knowingly associate with any person or persons presently on probation or parole.” Appellant contends the trial court’s conditions of probation regarding gang membership and involvement and association with persons on probation or parole are constitutionally vague and overbroad and must be modified. In light of this court’s decision in People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 630-634 (Lopez), the respondent concedes the term “gang” as used in the juvenile court’s orders is vague. Respondent