In re A.J. CA1/3

Filed 1/30/15 In re A.J. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re A.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A140927

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Alameda County v. Super. Ct. No. SJ13021920-01) A.J., Defendant and Appellant.

As a condition of probation, the juvenile court required A.J. (appellant) to name the co-participants in the burglary that resulted in him being adjudged a ward of the court. On appeal, appellant contends the probation condition violates his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and is unconstitutionally vague. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 On the morning of November 8, 2013, the Oakland police received a report of a residential burglary in progress. An officer who responded to the scene of the burglary saw four African-American males standing in the corner of the home’s backyard speaking in “hushed voices.” One of the males was wearing jeans, a gray hoodie with “GAP” emblazoned on the front, and a multi-colored, striped New York Knicks beanie.

1 Because appellant was declared a ward of the court as a result of a plea, the relevant facts are taken from the police reports.

1

When the four individuals saw the officer, they ran away. The officer pursued the males but ultimately lost sight of them. Another officer reported that he had detained a possible suspect nearby. The officer who first responded to the scene of the burglary immediately recognized the suspect, identified as appellant, as one of the males that fled from the backyard of the burglarized home. Appellant was wearing blue jeans, a gray hoodie bearing the word “GAP,” and a multi-colored New York Knicks beanie. He also had in his possession a backpack containing items stolen from the burglarized home, including a laptop computer and a camera, among other items. Appellant stated that “some people” had given him the backpack and that the contents were not his. The Alameda County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition charging appellant with burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted the charge of receiving stolen property at the jurisdictional hearing. On the motion of the district attorney, the juvenile court dismissed the burglary charge. At the dispositional hearing, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and placed him on probation in the home of his mother subject to various terms and conditions. As relevant here, the juvenile court required appellant as a condition of probation to provide the names of his co-participants in the burglary. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION 1. Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination Appellant contends the condition of probation requiring him to identify the co- participants in the crime violates his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendent. We disagree. As an initial matter, we note that the Attorney General argues that appellant forfeited his claim of error by failing to assert the privilege against self-incrimination at the time the condition was imposed. The Attorney General relies on the principle that the privilege against self-incrimination is not self-executing and generally must be claimed by the party seeking to invoke its protections. (Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) 465 U.S. 420, 427 (Murphy).) For his part, appellant contends the constitutional issue has not been