In re Christian F. CA4/1
Filed 11/15/22 In re Christian F. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re CHRISTIAN F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D079704 THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J241725)
v.
CHRISTIAN F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Tilisha T. Martin, Judge. Affirmed. Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In this juvenile delinquency matter, Christian F. challenges one of the conditions of probation imposed by the juvenile court as unconstitutionally vague. Specifically, he contends that it is not clear what the word “verifiable” means in the probation condition setting forth an exception to the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. nightly curfew for “verifiable school or employment, religious activities, organized sports or court-ordered programs.” (Italics added.) We conclude that the probation condition is not unconstitutionally vague, and we accordingly affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A juvenile wardship petition alleged three offenses against Christian: (1) assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)); (2) battery with serious bodily injury (id., § 243, subd.
(d)); and (3) resisting an executive officer (id., § 69).1 Christian admitted one of the counts, and the juvenile court made true findings on the other two. At the November 15, 2021 disposition hearing, the juvenile court adjudged Christian to be a ward of the court, placed him on probation, and ordered him committed to the Healing Opportunities for Personal Empowerment (HOPE) program. The minute order detailed the conditions of Christian’s probation. At issue here are the following two items: “You must be at your legal residence between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM unless you are with your parent or legal guardian,” and “You have an exception to curfew for verifiable school or employment, religious activities, organized sports or court-ordered programs.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)