In re Antonio R., G025423.
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Citation | 78 Cal.App.4th 937,93 Cal.Rptr.2d 212 |
| Decision Date | 29 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. G025423.,G025423. |
| Parties | In re ANTONIO R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Antonio R., Defendant and Appellant. |
The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Antonio R., Defendant and Appellant.
[93 Cal.Rptr.2d 213]
[78 Cal.App.4th 938]
Susan K. Keiser, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. Horst and Larissa Karpovics Hendren, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
[78 Cal.App.4th 939]
CROSBY, Acting P.J.
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: "Minor has changed his place of residence without informing the probation department. Minor
has stopped going to school without informing the probation officer. [He] has been involved in criminal behavior in both Los Angeles and Orange County.... [H] ... [He] has an extensive criminal history ..... [T]he current plan involving minor being home after camp graduation is not working."
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: "Gee I don't know.... I would really hope that since the last time he went to L.A. County he committed a felony, that you would be really happy that he didn't go ... where the gang is, that he stay here where his mother wants him to be; but obviously that's hoping against hope. So if it is overbroad you know what to do. And that's certainly something that ... [the Court of Appeal] can deal with. [11] See, just to add one part of that, I think that at his age — this is just my thinking, you know — and I would think
that if you were a mother and this were your child and the mother didn't want him to go to L.A. County, right, that that ought to be what's going to control; and so I'm backing her up." Antonio's mom, who was in court, agreed: "I don't let him go over there. I keep telling him."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 [defendant found guilty of soliciting an act of prostitution was granted probation on condition she not go into certain high-prostitution areas of the City of Fresno; court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. P.O. (In re P.O.), A145284
...to "bring up children" [citation] and to "direct the upbringing and education of children." [Citation.]’ " (In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 941, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 212.) Whether a probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad presents a question of law reviewed de novo. (In re......
-
People v. Alejandro R. (In re Alejandro R.), A144398
...jurisdiction over a minor, juvenile conditions ‘may be broader than those pertaining to adult offenders.’ (In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 941, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 212.) In Tyrell J., the Supreme Court explained another aspect of the difference: ‘Although the goal of both types of pr......
-
People v. Juan R. (In re Juan R.), A151254
...guidance and supervision than adults, and because a minor's constitutional rights are more circumscribed." ( In re Antonio R . (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 941, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 212.) "Further, when the state asserts jurisdiction over a minor, it stands in the shoes of the parents. A parent may......
-
People v. Ricardo P. (In re Ricardo P.), S230923
...the right to "bring up children" [citation,] and to "direct the upbringing and education of children." ’ " ( In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 941, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 212.)7 Cal.5th 1132 The statutory scheme governing juvenile probation illustrates the wide variety of probation condit......