Laylah K., In re, s. G009026

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Citation: 229 Cal.App.3d 1496,281 Cal.Rptr. 6
• Decision Date: 07 May 1991
• Docket Number: G009027,Nos. G009026,s. G009026
• Parties: In re LAYLAH K. and Sombrah K., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAYLAH K. and Sombrah K., Defendants and Appellants.

Page 6

281 Cal.Rptr. 6 229 Cal.App.3d 1496 In re LAYLAH K. and Sombrah K., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LAYLAH K. and Sombrah K., Defendants and Appellants. Nos. G009026, G009027. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California. May 7, 1991.
As Modified May 16, 1991.

[229 Cal.App.3d 1498] R.E. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant Laylah K.

Corinne S. Shulman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant Sombrah K.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Harley D. Mayfield, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., M. Howard Wayne, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., and Pamela K. Klahn, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION

SONENSHINE, Acting Presiding Justice.

After being declared wards of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 602), sisters Laylah K. and Sombrah K. were placed on probation and ordered to comply with certain terms and conditions. On appeal, they challenge the imposition of those terms, arguing they bear no reasonable relationship to the offenses and to their social histories. ¹

229 Cal.App.3d 1499

I

On April 27, 1989, Laylah, Sombrah, and two other girls accosted a woman walking her dog along a street. Demanding to know why she was wearing an article of red clothing, they shouted obscenities and challenged her to fight. Layla hit the woman twice in the face and, when apprehended by the police, presented false identification.

Laylah admitted violating Penal Code sections 415, subdivision (1) (fighting or challenging to fight in a public place) and 148.9 (providing false identification to a police officer). Assault and battery charges were dismissed. Sombrah admitted violating Penal Code section 415, subdivision (3) (using offensive words likely to incite violence), and the alleged violation of section 415, subdivision (1) was dismissed.

II

As a condition of their probation, the minors were ordered to comply with provisions specified on a preprinted form entitled "Gang Terms and Conditions of Probation." They contend the following terms were unlawfully imposed and should be stricken:

Term # 4: Prohibits minors from being out of their homes between 8 p.m. and 5 a.m.

Term # 8: Prohibits minors' presence at any known gathering area of the Crips gang.

Term # 9: Prohibits association with known members of the Crips gang.

Term # 10: Prohibits possession of weapons and association with persons who are in possession of weapons.

Term # 11: Orders submission to warrantless search and seizure.

Term # 12: Orders submission to chemical testing.

Term # 15: Prohibits presence at a court proceeding unless minor is a party, defendant, or witness.

Term # 16: Prohibits wearing clothing or emblems affiliated with membership in the Crips gang.

[229 Cal.App.3d 1500] Relying on People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545, the minors argue these conditions were not reasonably related to their crimes or to their rehabilitation. They also contend the terms infringe on their constitutional rights of speech and association and prohibit lawful conduct.

In Lent, the Supreme Court determined "[a] condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it '(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....' [Citation; fn. omitted.]" (Id. at p. 486, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545.) Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730, when a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on a delinquency petition, the court "may impose and require any and all 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." This provision has been broadly interpreted.

"Because of its rehabilitative function, the juvenile court has broad discretion when formulating conditions of probation. 'A condition of probation which is impermissible for an adult criminal defendant is not necessarily unreasonable for a juvenile receiving guidance and supervision from the juvenile court.' [Citation.]" (In re Frankie J. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1153, 244 Cal.Rptr. 254.)

In view of the unique role of the juvenile court in caring for the minor's well-being, it must consider "not only the circumstances of the crime but also the minor's entire social history" in fashioning conditions of probation. (In re Todd L. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 14, 20, 169 Cal.Rptr. 625.) Thus, in Todd L., a condition forbidding the minor to consume alcoholic beverages...