In re Erick P. CA5

California Court of Appeal Dec 28, 2015 No. F072094Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the juvenile court's imposition of gang-related probation conditions, holding that the conditions were reasonably related to future criminality and were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad because they included an express knowledge requirement.

Issues

Whether a probation condition prohibiting gang association is invalid if the underlying offense was not gang-related.
Whether the gang-related probation conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because associating with gang members is the first step to involvement in gang activity, a prohibition on such association is reasonably designed to prevent future criminal behavior by juveniles.”

“The language of the probation condition imposed upon Erick requires as to each restriction that Erick have knowledge of the gang association or gang symbolism.”

“The knowledge requirement alleviates any constitutional overbreadth challenge.”

Filed 12/28/15 In re Erick P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ERICK P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F072094

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJD068931)

v. OPINION ERICK P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Michael B. Sheltzer, Judge. Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Kane, J.

-ooOoo- INTRODUCTION Appellant Erick P. contends the juvenile court’s imposition of a probation condition prohibiting association with known gang members, the wearing of gang clothing or symbols, and acquiring gang tattoos is invalid because: (1) his offense was not gang related; and (2) the condition is vague and overbroad. We reject his contentions and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY According to the records of the Dinuba Police Department, at approximately noon on May 19, 2015, Officer Wilder was dispatched to a restaurant because of a report that three juveniles possibly were intoxicated. Upon arrival, Wilder made contact with one juvenile male at a table, Manuel H., and two others in the restroom, Erick and Jonathan R. Jonathan was vomiting and unable to stand or communicate; he was transported to the hospital. Wilder transported Erick and Manuel to their high school and made contact with the assistant principal. Erick’s back pack was searched by school personnel and a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20 alcohol was found. Erick confirmed the bottle was his and acknowledged drinking a bottle earlier in the day. When being questioned, Erick became agitated and stated, “Just take me to fucking jail” several times while pacing and glaring at school personnel. Wilder advised Erick to sit down and Erick replied, “What if I punch you in the face” then approached and attempted to strike Wilder. Wilder blocked this punch and grabbed Erick’s hand, but then was struck in the side of his face by Erick. Wilder verbally instructed Erick to stop fighting, but Erick did not comply. With assistance from another officer, Erick was placed in handcuffs and taken into custody.

In re Erick P. CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, F072094

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief