People v. C.F. (In re C.F.)
| Decision Date | 02 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | A153933 |
| Parties | In re C.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.F., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. J39049)
This is an appeal from the juvenile court's dispositional order, dated March 7, 2018, after minor C.F. entered a no contest plea to second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 and admitted the allegation that he was armed with a firearm when committing this crime.1 Pursuant to this order, minor was placed on probation subject to various terms and conditions, including that he submit to warrantless searches of his electronic devices and refrain from using or possessing weapons. On appeal, minor challenges these two conditions as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. For reasons set forth below, we modify one of the challenged conditions, and otherwise affirm the order.
On January 24, 2018, an amended juvenile wardship petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that minor, age 16, committedcarjacking (§ 215, subd. (a); count 1), second degree robbery (§ 211; count 2), and conspiracy to commit robbery (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); count 3). As to counts 1 and 2, it was further alleged these offenses were felonies within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b) and that, when committing them, minor was armed with a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (a)(1).
On February 21, 2018, minor admitted count 2, second degree robbery, enhanced for being armed with a firearm, and the remaining counts and enhancements were dismissed.
A report filed by minor's probation officer in anticipation of the dispositional hearing set forth the following facts regarding minor's crime. On January 20, 2018, Anthony Guzman, age 19, contacted the victim, M.M., through Snapchat, a social media application, after the victim posted a photograph of himself displaying marijuana and $400 in cash. The two individuals arranged to meet at a local park, the victim intending to sell marijuana to Guzman and smoke with him, while Guzman secretly intended to rob the victim. Unknown to the victim, Guzman had earlier contacted minor and Manuel J. (minor's cousin) about "doing a 'lick' " on someone at the park.
Manuel later explained he did not believe they were actually going to commit a crime, but believed they would just meet to smoke marijuana. In any event, Guzman, minor, Manuel and two other youths (both named Angel) went to the park in Guzman's car. During the drive, Guzman told everyone his plan for them to rob the victim. In the car were a wooden bat, tire jack, masks and semi-automatic handgun. Guzman pointed the gun at minor and instructed him to use it to steal the victim's phone and car keys and to search his car. Minor repeatedly told Guzman he did not want to do it, but felt he had no choice. Thus, once at the park, after Guzman and the victim had conducted the marijuana sale, minor, Manuel and one of the Angels approached wearing masks. Angel had the bat, minor the gun, and Manuel the tire jack. One of them ordered the victim to hand over his car keys, and when the victim asked whether they were joking, minorpointed the gun at him, pulled and released the slide as if chambering a round, and responded, "Does this look like a joke?" Scared, the victim handed over his keys.
At this point, minor told the victim and Guzman to get down on the ground, while Manuel took the keys, went to the victim's car and searched it for money and drugs. Guzman, meanwhile, handed the suspects his black backpack. The victim, suspecting he had been set up, confronted Guzman after the robbers had left. Guzman denied being involved and turned to leave, claiming he was going to find the suspects. Minutes later, the victim tried to contact Guzman on Snapchat, but discovered he had been blocked. He therefore returned to his car (a black Acura) and called his friend Jaime to tell him what had happened. Jaime drove to where the victim's car was parked, and the victim left his car and got into Jaime's car to talk. A few minutes later, they turned to see the suspects pulling up beside the victim's car in Guzman's gray Acura, with Guzman sitting in the front passenger seat. As they watched, Angel got out of the gray Acura and tried to enter the victim's car, but could not get in. The suspects then fled in Guzman's Acura, with the victim and Jaime following in hot pursuit in Jaime's car.
Eventually, the suspects got away, and Jaime and the victim returned to the area where the victim's car was parked, watching from a distance. Guzman's Acura did indeed return to the scene, and this time, Angel was able to exit Guzman's car to enter and steal the victim's car. Jaime and the victim pulled up in Jaime's car to confront the suspects still sitting in Guzman's car, which included minor, sitting in the backseat wearing a mask. According to the victim, minor then rolled down his window and pointed his gun at them as the suspects drove past. At this point, Angel sped off in the victim's car while the other suspects sped off in Guzman's car. The victim and Jaime pursued his stolen car but eventually lost sight of it and called the police.
The police later located the gray Acura in a Burger King parking lot and detained Guzman, minor, Angel and two others. Minor was subsequently identified by both Jaime and the victim in an in-field showup as the person who had pointed the handgun at them during the car robbery. It was later revealed this handgun had been taken by Guzman from a 17-year-old boy. Specifically, this boy had taken the handgun from his father'sgun safe and brought it to a friend's house, where he displayed it to several people, including Guzman. It appears Guzman then left the house with the handgun after the youth briefly left the room. The handgun, a Glock 23, was later found during a search of Guzman's car, along with other contraband, including three live rounds of .40-caliber ammunition.
At the dispositional hearing on March 7, 2018, the juvenile court considered the statement by minor's probation officer that minor had a low risk of reoffending, as well as the numerous character reference letters received on minor's behalf from nearly a dozen individuals. At the same time, the court noted that several of minor's actions, including brandishing the semiautomatic weapon and "slid[ing] the rack" were quite serious and could not be deemed accidental. The court then declared wardship and placed minor on probation subject to various terms and conditions. In addition, minor was committed to juvenile hall for 167 to 227 days, upon completion of which he was to be committed to the juvenile camp run by the Departmental Commitment Program.
On March 21, 2018, minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
Minor challenges the following two conditions of his probation as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution:
No. 1: (hereinafter, electronics search condition); and
No. 2: "The minor shall not knowingly use, possess, transport, sell or have under his/her control any firearm, replica, ammunition or other weapon, including a knife, anyexplosive, or any item intended for use as a weapon" or "that you know someone else might consider to be a weapon" (hereinafter, weapons condition).2
We address each of these probation conditions below after setting forth the relevant legal framework:
Where the juvenile court places a minor on probation following the minor's commission of a crime, it "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." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730, subd. (b).) " (In re Binh L. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 194, 203.)
Despite the greater latitude afforded juvenile courts in ordering probation conditions, it remains the law in all cases that "[a] probation condition 'must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial