People v. P.A. (In re P.A.)

• Decision Date: 15 November 2012
• Docket Number: No. E053608.,E053608.
• Citation: People v. P.A. (In re P.A.), 211 Cal.App.4th 23, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 300 (Cal. App. 2012)
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re P.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. P.A., Defendant and Appellant.

211 Cal.App.4th 23

149 Cal.Rptr.3d 300

2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,562

In re P.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.P.A., Defendant and Appellant.

No. E053608.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

Nov. 15, 2012.

Certified for Partial Publication.^*

See 10 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Parent and Child, § 930.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. H.A. Staley ^** and Samuel Diaz, Jr., Judges.^*** Affirmed as modified.

Mark J. Shusted, Westmont, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and Lilia E. Garcia and Lynne G. McGinnis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

KING, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Following a confrontation between two groups of students at a high school in Moreno Valley, defendant and appellant P.A. (Minor) refused to comply with an order by a Riverside County Sheriff's deputy to disperse and return to class. When he behaved in a defiant and threatening manner toward the deputy, he was arrested.

The Riverside County District Attorney filed a petition alleging that Minor came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code based on two paragraphs: Minor attempted, through threats and violence, to deter or prevent a sheriff's deputy from performing his duty, a felony (par. 1; Pen.Code, § 69), and misdemeanor resisting arrest (par. 2; § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the court found the allegations true.

At a subsequent disposition hearing, the court reduced the felony count to a misdemeanor. The court then declared Minor a ward of the court and placed him in the care, custody, and control of the probation officer. The court ordered Minor to be committed to juvenile hall for two days (which he had already served), to perform 50 hours of community service, and to pay a restitution fine. Minor was continued in the physical custody of his parents and placed on probation subject to numerous conditions.

On appeal, Minor requests that we review the arresting deputy's personnel records, which were produced and reviewed in camera pursuant to a Pitchess¹ motion, to determine whether the court erred in findingno discoverable items in the records. He also argues that we should strike the court's statement at the jurisdiction hearing of a maximum term of confinement for Minor's offenses. Finally, he challenges five conditions of his probation.

We have reviewed the records pertaining to the Pitchess motion and conclude that the trial court's determination was not an abuse of discretion. Because the court's statement of a maximum term of confinement was made at the jurisdiction hearing, not at the disposition hearing, we reject Minor's request to strike the statement. Regarding the probation conditions, we reject Minor's argument regarding a condition requiring that he submit to blood, breath, or urine tests for the presence of alcohol or controlled substances; agree with Minor that a restriction on moving is unconstitutionally overbroad; and agree that certain other conditions should be modified to conform to the requirements of due process.

II. FACTUAL SUMMARY

A. Prosecution Evidence

Michael Galvan is a deputy sheriff assigned to the gang special enforcement team in Moreno Valley. On November 5, 2009, he was in uniform and assigned to extra patrol at a local high school. About 1:00 p.m., he received a call that several groups were confronting one another in the “mid-quad” area of the school. Classrooms are located approximately 25 feet from the middle of this “quad.”

When he arrived at the mid-quad area, he saw approximately 200 students divided into two groups: one group of mostly Hispanic students, and another group of mostly Black students. Some students were “confronting one another, yelling back and forth. And they appeared as if they were going to fight.” He described the confrontation as a “415 on school grounds.” ²

In order to avoid further confrontation between the groups, Officer Galvan and other officers attempted to disperse the crowd and get the students into their classrooms. They approached the groups and told the students to go to their classrooms. Most students complied and left the area. A few refused to disperse. He told those that remained “several times” to disperse and go to their classrooms. After a minute or so, there were still five or six students who did not leave the area. Minor was one of these.

Officer Galvan approached each of the remaining students separately and told each one individually that they needed to leave the area and return to their classroom. He asked this of Minor “several times,” but Minor refused to leave. After the third time, Minor “became visibly angry and upset and began cursing.” He said “the F word several times.” “Basically,” Officer Galvan testified, “what he was saying was, I'm not leaving.”

As Officer Galvan approached Minor, Minor clenched his fists like a boxer or fighter and held them up towards his chest. He “bladed” his feet (i.e., put one foot further back than the other) in a “fighting stance.” Minor told Officer Galvan, “[Y]ou better not come any closer.” Officer Galvan believed that Minor would assault him if he went any closer. Officer Galvan then quickly approached Minor, turned him around, placed him in a rear wrist lock, and held him against a nearby wall. Minor became irate; he cursed, screamed, yelled, and tried to pull away from Officer Galvan's grasp.

Another officer came to Officer Galvan's aid. The two of them gained control of Minor's arms and placed him in handcuffs.

B. Defense Evidence

Minor testified in his defense as follows. On the date of the incident, Minor was standing by a tree in front of his classroom waiting for his class to open. Two of his friends were nearby. Officer Galvan approached him and asked him to go to class. If his class had been open, he would have gone to class. Minor told Officer Galvan two or three times that he could not go to class because the classroom was not yet open.

When Officer Galvan repeated the request, Minor turned around and told one of his friends, “This is bullshit,” and “[D]oes the officers gotta be like that?” The friend responded, “[W]hy do cops gotta be like this.” At that point, his teacher opened up the classroom, and Minor started walking to his class.

Officer Galvan stopped him and said, “[C]ome here, you're being ... placed under arrest.” Minor turned around and, with his hands by his side, said, “[D]on't come closer.” Minor said this because he was already by his class. Minor did not have the chance to explain that he was starting toward his class because Officer Galvan came at him, grabbed him, twisted him, and “slammed [him] against the wall.” Minor asked Officer Galvan to loosen his grip, but “he did not listen.” Minor tried to pull away because Officer Galvan's grip was hurting him.

Minor said he never yelled; however, his “voice and tone is pretty much always up....” He also admitted to saying “the F word” once: “I was, like, man, F this.” However, he believed that Officer Galvan did not hear him say that.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Review of Officer Galvan's Personnel File^†B. Trial Court's Statement of Maximum Term of Confinement

At the jurisdiction hearing in February 2011, the court stated that the maximum confinement with respect to paragraph 1 is three years, and the maximum confinement as to paragraph 2 is four months.⁴ At the disposition hearing in May 2011, the court reduced paragraph 1 to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b). The court did not remove Minor from the physical custody of his parents and did not make any statement regarding a maximum term of confinement.

On appeal, Minor contends the court's statements at the jurisdiction hearing specifying the maximum term of confinement was error because such statements can be made only if the minor is removed from the physical custody of the minor's parents. He requests that we order the improper statements be stricken. We decline to do so.

In In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 846( Ali A.), the juvenile court sustained a charge against the minor of attempted robbery. He was committed to the custody of his parents under the supervision of a probation officer. ( Id. at p. 571, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 846.) At the minor's disposition hearing, the court stated a maximum period of confinement for the minor. ( Id. at p. 572, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 846.) Apparently, the court made this statement based upon Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (c),⁵ which provides: “If the minor is removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian as the result of an order of wardship made pursuant to Section 602, the order shall specify that the minor may not be held in physical confinement for a period in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the offense or offenses which brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” ( Ali A., supra, at p. 573, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 846; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.795(b).)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court had no discretion to set a maximum period of confinement when, as in that case, the minor is not removed from his parents' custody. ( Ali A., supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 571, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 846.) The court explained that section 726, subdivision (c), “applies only ‘[i]f the minor is removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian....’ ” ( Ali A., supra, at p. 573, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 846.) Because the minor had not been removed from his parents' custody, “the juvenile court was not required ... to include a maximum term of confinement in its dispositional...