In re O.G. CA1/1

Filed 5/29/15 In re O.G. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 O. G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A142716 v. O. G., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ12020038) Defendant and Appellant.

In this delinquency case, we are asked to determine if certain conditions dealing with gang affiliation placed on appellant are appropriate. The Attorney General has agreed the probation terms need to be modified to include a scienter requirement. The appellant also maintains he should have no “gang” conditions because the evidence fails to establish his association with such a group. We conclude the juvenile court exercised its discretion properly in this delinquency matter and will not reverse the conditions themselves. We do concur the conditions need modification. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On December 5, 2012, the District Attorney of Alameda County filed a wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,1 alleging appellant,

1 Any unspecified code sections referenced in the opinion refer to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

age 15, committed hit and run driving (count one, a violation of Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)) and driving without a valid California driver’s license (count two, a violation of Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a).) The appellant admitted count one. The district attorney dismissed count two. The juvenile court found appellant a ward of the court and placed him on formal probation on January 17, 2013. On October 3, 2013, appellant tested positive for cocaine and the juvenile court modified his probation to include electronic monitoring. On January 28, 2014, the juvenile probation department filed a section 777 petition alleging appellant had been suspended from high school after giving one of his teachers a brownie laced with marijuana. On January 30, 2014, the juvenile court continued O.G. as a ward. It dismissed the most recent petition but reinstated the electronic monitoring and imposed additional conditions. On March 18, 2014, the court again vacated the electronic monitoring. A supplemental petition was filed on June 16, 2014, alleging a violation of probation because appellant had stopped attending school, failed to contact his probation officer, and again tested positive for cocaine use. On July 24, 2014, the court held a disposition hearing. The court continued appellant as a ward of the court. It reinstated probation with new terms, including electronic monitoring and several gang restrictions. These included: (1) “Do not be a member of or associate with any person you know, or reasonably should know, to be a member of, or involved in, activities of a criminal street gang”; (2) “You are not to wear or display items or emblems reasonably known to be associated with or symbolic of gang membership”; (3) “You are not to acquire any tattoos or gang related piercings”; and (4) “You shall have any existing tattoos or piercings photographed as recommended by the probation officer.” Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on August 11, 2014.