In re Isaiah S. CA6

Filed 8/24/16 In re Isaiah S. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re ISAIAH S., a Person Coming Under H042774 the Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 315-JV41050A)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ISAIAH S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Isaiah S. contends that the no-contact probation conditions imposed by the juvenile court are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because they lack knowledge requirements. We modify the conditions to add knowledge requirements.

I. Background Isaiah and Maria C. had a romantic relationship from August 2012 to August 2013. Maria became pregnant in the spring of 2013. She suffered a miscarriage in August 2013, and they ended their relationship a week later. After their relationship ended, their contact was limited to “Facebook” until October 2014. Isaiah contacted

Maria in October 2014 saying he wanted to get back together, and they met in a park. This meeting did not result in a reconciliation. Maria thereafter “blocked him on Facebook.” One evening in November 2014, Maria encountered Isaiah near a bus stop close to her home. Isaiah called her name and pursued her. He caught up with her and accused her of causing her miscarriage. Maria told him to leave her alone and began crying. Isaiah punched her twice in the arm and slapped her on the lip. After she told him that she was going to “call the cops,” he went away. Maria suffered a bruise to her arm and a cut on her lip. She told her mother about the incident that evening, and her mother called the police. A temporary no-contact restraining order was issued. In March 2015, the court explained to Isaiah what the restraining order meant. “It’s to keep you away from her.” “In any way whatsoever, including social media and telephones and third parties. No contact at all. It is an order that you can be arrested for violating.” Isaiah acknowledged that he understood this explanation. At the jurisdictional hearing, Isaiah presented an alibi defense. Isaiah, his mother, his father, and his girlfriend testified that Isaiah was with them at his father’s house at the time of the November 2014 incident. Isaiah testified that he had not seen Maria since their breakup in August 2013 and had had no contact with her in October or November 2014. Isaiah insisted that he had had no contact, personally, by text, or on Facebook, with Maria in the last year. He denied that he had blamed Maria for her miscarriage. The court found that Isaiah had inflicted corporal injury on Maria (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and declared the offense to be a felony. Isaiah was declared a ward and placed on probation. His probation conditions included the following: “16. That said subject shall have no personal, telephonic, electronic or written contact with the protected person; [¶] 17. That said subject shall have no contact with the protected person through a third party, except an attorney of record; [¶] 18. That said subject shall