In re V.C. CA6

Filed 10/8/21 In re V.C. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 V.C., a Person Coming Under the H047923 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. 15JV41198B)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

V.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant V.C. challenges a condition of supervision imposed by the juvenile court at his reentry disposition hearing following his commitment to the Department of Corrections, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Specifically, V.C. challenges as void for vagueness the condition that he obey the reasonable and proper directives of his parents while he lives with them. For the reasons set out below, we reject V.C.’s contention and affirm the juvenile court’s February 25, 2020 order.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Neither the charging document nor the facts underlying V.C.’s crimes appear in the record on appeal. On June 12, 2017, V.C. admitted violations of commission of a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 by force (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)1; count 1), commission of a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a); count 3), and first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a); count 4). The juvenile court found V.C. came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. On July 18, 2017, the juvenile court declared V.C. a ward of the court and committed him to DJJ for a maximum period of two years, 11 months. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731, subd. (c).) Among the conditions imposed by the juvenile court was that V.C. “obey the reasonable and proper directives of his parents.” V.C. began his DJJ commitment on October 3, 2017. On February 25, 2020, the juvenile court conducted a reentry disposition hearing to determine the conditions under which V.C. would be supervised by the probation department following his DJJ commitment. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1766.) V.C. was then 22 years old. V.C.’s parents and brother attended the hearing. Upon his release from DJJ, V.C. was going to live with his parents. In the report prepared by the probation department in anticipation of V.C.’s reentry disposition hearing, the probation officer noted that the department had conducted a home visit. The report suggested a number of conditions of supervision, including the condition contained in the prior disposition report that V.C. should obey the reasonable and proper directives of his parents. V.C.’s counsel objected to this condition.2 She asserted that it should not apply because V.C. was 22 years old and would be supervised by probation until he was 25.