In re Antonio J. CA5

Filed 4/9/13 In re Antonio J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ANTONIO J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F065100

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JL003903)

v. OPINION ANTONIO J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. David W. Moranda, Judge. Gabriel C. Vivas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Kelly E. LeBel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J. and Gomes, J.

-ooOoo- INTRODUCTION In a juvenile wardship proceeding (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 600 et. seq.) appellant was found to have committed a residential burglary, possessed vandalism tools and 28 grams or less of marijuana. As part of the dispositional order, appellant was ordered to successfully complete various terms and conditions of probation. Appellant challenges the constitutionality of three probation conditions: (1) he is not to remain away from home overnight without first securing the probation officer‟s permission (condition No. 8); (2) he is not to wear gang clothing or display gang signs, markings and insignia (condition No. 33); and (3) he is not to possess instruments used to apply graffiti (condition No. 43). We conclude that condition Nos. 8 and 43 are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad but will modify the knowledge requirement contained in condition No. 33. The judgment will be affirmed as modified. PROCEDURAL FACTS On February 7, 2011, a juvenile wardship was filed alleging appellant came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 based on his commission of two misdemeanors on October 26, 2010: disturbing the peace of a school campus (count 1) and battery on school property (count 2). (Pen. Code, §§ 415.5, subd. (a), 243.2, subd. (a).) On June 20, 2011, an amended petition was filed. It added an allegation that appellant committed a first degree residential burglary on April 24, 2011 (count 3). (Pen. Code, § 459.) On December 8, 2011, a second amended petition was filed. It added allegations that appellant vandalized a bridge belonging to the City of Merced (count 5) and