In re M.N. CA1/5

Filed 9/2/15 In re M.N. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re M.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.N., A143609 Defendant and Appellant. (Napa County Super. Ct. No. JV17221)

Appellant M.N. appeals the juvenile court’s order continuing her as a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 and imposing various conditions of probation. Appellant contends a condition prohibiting her from possessing “any ammunition, explosive, weapon or replica of a weapon” (the weapons condition) is unconstitutionally vague. We will direct that the language of the condition be modified. BACKGROUND In August 2012, the Napa County District Attorney filed a section 602 petition alleging that appellant, born in February 1997, disturbed the peace for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, §§ 415, 186.22, subd. (d)). In October, appellant admitted the allegations and was granted deferred entry of judgment (§ 790).

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

Supplemental petitions alleging additional offenses were filed in February and March 2013. In April, appellant was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on home probation. Petitions alleging various violations of probation were filed in April, June, and November of 2013 and in May 2014. Appellant admitted violations and was reinstated on probation. Another supplemental petition was filed in September 2014, alleging an additional offense and five violations of conditions of probation. Appellant admitted the allegations of the petition. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court continued appellant as a ward of the court and reinstated home probation, with modified terms and conditions, including a condition that “[t]he minor shall not possess any ammunition, explosive, weapon or replica of a weapon.” This appeal followed.2 DISCUSSION Appellant claims the weapons condition is unconstitutionally vague. We agree and direct that the language of the condition be modified, although we will employ language suggested by respondent. Appellant contends the language of the weapons condition “is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it does not adequately describe what types of weapons are prohibited and does not contain an express knowledge requirement.” She argues the condition “should be modified to state: ‘You shall not knowingly possess any ammunition, explosive, any object or replica of an object that you know is a dangerous, illegal, or deadly weapon, or any object that you know can be used to cause bodily injury or death where you intend such harm.’ ” She emphasizes that “[t]he term ‘any weapons’ includes not only specifically designed and inherently dangerous and deadly weapons such as guns, but it can include objects like hammers and kitchen or pocket knives that have nonlethal uses.” Appellant also claims the probation condition is unconstitutional because it does not require that she knowingly possess the prohibited items. Respondent agrees the language of the condition should be modified, but argues it should be modified