In re Carlos R. CA3

Filed 7/26/16 In re Carlos R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

In re CARLOS R., a Person Coming Under the C080666 Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JDSQ-15-74)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARLOS R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Minor Carlos R. admitted a probation violation. On appeal, he contends one of the resulting modifications to his probation order--the addition of order No. 16--was an abuse of the juvenile court’s discretion because it is an unsupported, nonassociation order naming three individuals identified (and described) only by name. The Attorney General agrees the record is devoid of any support or even foundation for the disputed order. She allows that “the challenged condition might not pass muster in an adult proceeding,” but

1

argues in her briefing that the modification was not an abuse of the juvenile court’s broad discretion.1 The minor has the better argument. We modify the dispositional orders to strike the challenged portion of order No. 16. BACKGROUND In February 2015, the minor punched his victim in the back of the head. A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition2 filed in the Sonoma County Superior Court alleged a single count of misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242). The minor admitted the allegation. The Sonoma County Superior Court then transferred the matter to Yolo County, the minor’s county of residence, for disposition. On April 2, 2015, the Yolo County Juvenile Court adjudged the minor a ward of the court and placed him under the supervision of a probation officer. Included in his probation conditions was a stay-away order from his victim as well as a nonassociation order encompassing gang members known to him or identified as such by the probation officer. As relevant here, on August 7, 2015, the Yolo County Probation Department (the Department) filed a notice of hearing pursuant to section 777, subdivision (a)(2) alleging multiple probation violations. On August 17, the People moved the juvenile court for a new nonassociation order to be included in the conditions of the minor’s probation. Specifically, the People sought an order precluding the minor from associating with an individual we will identify as “I.R.,” alleging the minor was wearing gang clothing and had a knife when he was seen with I.R. The People also asked the court to order