In re Brian N. CA4/3

Filed 6/30/15 In re Brian N. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re BRIAN N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G049573 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DL048530) v. OPINION BRIAN N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheryl L. Leininger, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Steven A. Brody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Adrianne S. Denault and Karl T. Terp, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant challenges two of the conditions of his probation as being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We agree the conditions must be modified to include an explicit knowledge requirement and recognize appellant’s right of self- defense. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant and another juvenile physically assaulted a fellow student while he was walking home from school. They also stole the victim’s cell phone during the attack. Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court found true allegations appellant committed second degree robbery and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. It then declared appellant a ward of the court, ordered him to serve 150 days in custody, and placed him on probation subject to various terms and conditions. Among other things, the court told appellant, “You are not to possess weapons of any description including firearms (operable or inoperable), BB devices, dirks, daggers, knives of any description, nun chucks, and martial arts weaponry. You are not to possess ammunition or weapon replicas. You are not to involve yourself in activities in which weapons are used including but not limited to hunting and target shooting. You are not to remain in any vehicle wherein anyone possesses a weapon, ammunition or weapon replica.” In addition, the court told appellant he was not allowed to “possess a beeper, pager, cellular phone or any other cordless or otherwise wireless communication device.” DISCUSSION Appellant contends these conditions are vague and overbroad because they do not contain an explicit knowledge requirement and they do not allow him to possess a weapon in self-defense. We agree. To survive a vagueness challenge, probation terms “‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is being required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated.’” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th