In re S.D. CA5

Filed 6/3/13 In re S.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F066094

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JW123937-03)

v. S.D., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Peter A. Warmerdam, Referee. Steven A. Torres, 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, Peter H. Smith and Jesse Witt, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Peña, J.

The court found that appellant, S.D., was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after appellant admitted allegations charging him with possession of a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(4)). On appeal, appellant contends that one of his conditions of probation is constitutionally overbroad. We will find merit to this contention and modify the condition at issue. In all other respects, we affirm. FACTS On May 25, 2011, during an investigation by Los Angeles police officers, appellant was found to be in possession of a dart that had been sharpened and its fins removed so it could be held as a knife. Appellant was on probation in a Kern County case at the time. On July 26, 2011, the district attorney filed a petition charging appellant with possession of a dirk or dagger. On August 7, 2012, the court held an adjudication hearing during which it also heard appellant‟s motion to suppress. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied appellant‟s motion to suppress, sustained the possession of a dirk or dagger charge, and transferred the case to the Kern County Superior Court. On August 16, 2012, the Kern County Superior Court accepted the transfer. On August 27, 2012, the court found appellant‟s offense to be a felony and it placed appellant on probation not to exceed his 21st birthday. DISCUSSION One of appellant‟s conditions of probation provided that “[The minor is] not to possess or use a weapon of any type, nor associate or initiate contact with anyone that he knows to be involved with or in possession of the same.” Appellant contends that this condition is constitutionally overbroad because almost anything can be a dangerous weapon and it prohibits him from interacting with