In re Antonio R.
Decision Date | 29 February 2000 |
Docket Number | No. G025423.,G025423. |
Citation | 78 Cal.App.4th 937,93 Cal.Rptr.2d 212 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re ANTONIO R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Antonio R., Defendant and Appellant. |
Antonio R. appeals from a juvenile court probation order that requires him to stay out of Los Angeles County unless accompanied by a parent or with prior permission from the probation officer. We affirm.
Antonio absconded from Orange County juvenile probation supervision on his seventeenth birthday, January 18, 1999, four days after his release from a county program.1 In Los Angeles in early March, he burgled a car. He claimed to be living with a pregnant girlfriend in Lennox or Inglewood and working as a gardener. The minor admitted membership in the Lennox 13 gang for many years with the name "Lil Boy," and conceded he had been "kicking back" with gang members while AWOL.2 He regularly drank and smoked marijuana.
A juvenile court report from Los Angeles detailed Antonio's lengthy arrest history. It described his "overall conduct under supervision" as poor:
Addressing the condition that Antonio not be allowed to travel to Los Angeles County without a parent or the permission of the probation officer, defense counsel questioned whether the proviso was overbroad. The court said this: Antonio's mom, who was in court, agreed: 3
The minor argues the condition was impermissibly overbroad.4 He claims the condition did not directly relate to past or future criminal conduct. He also asserts the condition impinges on his constitutional rights to travel and freely associate, and was not narrowly tailored to address the state's compelling interest in his reformation.
Welfare and Institutions Code section 730 grants courts broad discretion in establishing conditions of probation in juvenile cases. The court may impose "any ... reasonable conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced." (Id., subd. (b).)
In an adult probation setting, "[a] condition of probation which (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality does not serve the statutory ends of probation and is invalid." (People v. Dominguez (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 623, 627, 64 Cal.Rptr. 290; accord, People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545.)
The minor relies on several cases where an adult probation condition was considered overbroad, unreasonable, or unconstitutional. (In re White (1979) 97 Cal. App.3d 141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562 [ ];5 People v. Beach (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 612, 195 Cal.Rptr. 381 [ ]; People v. Bauer (1989) 211 Cal. App.3d 937, 260 Cal.Rptr. 62 [ ].)
However, as explained in In re Frank V. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1232, 285 Cal.Rptr. 16, juvenile conditions may be broader than those pertaining to adult offenders. This is because juveniles are deemed to be more in need of guidance and supervision than adults, and because a minor's constitutional rights are more circumscribed. The state, when it asserts jurisdiction over a minor, stands in the shoes of the parents. And a parent may (Id. at p. 1243, 285 Cal.Rptr. 16; In re Roger S. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 921, 928, 141 Cal.Rptr. 298, 569 P.2d 1286.)
In In re Pedro Q. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1368, 257 Cal.Rptr. 821, although the issue addressed was whether a probation officer may unilaterally impose a new condition restricting travel to a particular locale (he or she may not), a panel of this division noted: "[Conditions infringing on constitutional rights are not automatically invalid [citation]; indeed, they will pass muster if tailored to fit the individual probationer. [Citation.] For example, while a travel restriction may be proper for a minor who lives...
To continue reading
Request your trial- People v. P.O. (In re P.O.)
- People v. Alejandro R. (In re Alejandro R.)
- People v. Juan R. (In re Juan R.)
- People v. Ricardo P. (In re Ricardo P.)