In re A.W. CA5

California Court of Appeal Nov 19, 2020 No. F081173Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a probation condition prohibiting a minor from associating with specific individuals or contacting a victim is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad for failing to include an express 'knowing and purposeful' scienter requirement.

Issues

Whether a probation condition prohibiting association with specific individuals and contact with a victim is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad for lacking an express knowledge qualifier.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a condition of probation is not unconstitutionally vague for failure to include a scienter requirement.”

“The no-contact condition of the minor’s probation is not void for vagueness or unconstitutionally overbroad.”

“it is well established “a probationer cannot be punished for presence …, association, [contact], or other actions absent proof of scienter.””

Filed 11/19/20 In re A.W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.W, a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F081173

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18CEJ600404-1A)

v. OPINION A.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary D. Hoff, Judge. Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Snauffer, J.

Minor, A.W., appeals from a disposition order adjudging him a ward of the juvenile court and placing him on probation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) He contends that the condition of his probation prohibiting his association and contact with specific individuals (the no-contact condition) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it does not specify that it prohibits only knowing and purposeful contact. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On January 6, 2020,1 the Fresno County District Attorney filed a wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)), alleging the 16-year-old minor had committed carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215;2 count 1) and robbery (§ 211; count 2). On March 9, the court found the allegations of the petition true and concluded both offenses were felonies. The minor therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. On May 1, the court held a disposition hearing. On count 1, the court found the maximum period of confinement to be nine years (§ 215); on count 2, the court stayed imposition of sentence. The court adjudged the minor to be a ward of the juvenile court, placed the minor on probation until November 28, 2021, and set conditions of probation. The court further ordered the minor removed from the custody of his parents and committed him to the custody of the New Horizons program. On May 19, the minor filed a notice of appeal. FACTUAL SUMMARY On January 2, at about 6:00 p.m., Stephanie Western left work, began talking on the telephone, and walked to her car. She saw three young men walking down the

In re A.W. CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, F081173

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief