In re I.P. CA3

Filed 5/30/13 In re I.P. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

In re I. P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, C071551

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J35119)

v.

I. P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following a disposition hearing in June 2012, I. P. (the minor) was placed on formal probation. The minor appeals, alleging that three conditions of his probation are unconstitutionally vague and therefore must be stricken and modified. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The minor’s terms of probation include, in pertinent part, the following conditions:

1

“6. Totally refrain from the use, control, or possession of any controlled substance, including alcohol, unless with a current prescription from a licensed physician, & possess no narcotic paraphernalia. “[¶] . . . [¶] “34. That the minor not have any dangerous or deadly weapon in his/her possession, nor remain in the presence of any unlawfully armed person. “35. That the minor not associate with . . . [a]ny person involved in the crime for which he/she was adjudicated.” The minor timely appealed. DISCUSSION I Scienter Is Implied In Probation Conditions The minor claims that “General condition of probation six and special conditions of probation 34 and 35 . . . are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad” because they lack a knowledge requirement. Thus, he “could unknowingly violate the terms of his probation.” The minor claims these conditions “must be stricken and modified” so as to include a knowledge requirement. “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘embodied in the due process clauses of the federal and California Constitutions.’ ” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890.) The minor concedes that just two years ago in People v. Patel (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 956, 960, this court announced “our intent to henceforth no longer entertain this issue on appeal.” We held that, hereafter we would “construe every probation condition proscribing a probationer’s presence, possession, association, or similar action to require the action be undertaken knowingly. It [is] no longer . . . necessary to seek a