Error and/or relief
The absence in this record of the necessary gang nexus requires the gang conditions of probation ordered here be stricken. The gang conditions were “25. Must not spend time with any person you know, or whom your probation officer tells you, is a gang member”; and “26. Must not wear or display any clothing, tattoos, or signs you know, or your probation officer tells you is evidence of affiliation with or membership in a gang. The word ‘gang’ means a criminal street gang as defined in California Penal Code Section 186.22.”
First Holding:
Crimes need not be gang-related to warrant the imposition of gang terms as conditions of probation.
Authority:
In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1120–1121
Second Holding:
On appeal, we review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. That is, a reviewing court will disturb the trial court’s decision to impose a particular condition of probation only if, under all the circumstances, that choice is arbitrary and capricious and is wholly unreasonable.
Authority:
People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379
People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403
Third Holding:
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
Authority:
People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486
In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118–1119 [applying the three-part Lent standard to juvenile probation conditions]
Fourth Holding:
Courts may impose conditions that have a relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted and may also impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety.
Authority:
People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379
People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120
Fifth Holding:
The conditions of probation aimed at rehabilitating the offender need not be so strictly tied to the offender’s precise crime as long as they are reasonably directed at curbing an offender’s future criminality. But there must be a strong connection between the burdens imposed by the challenged condition and a probationer’s criminal conduct or personal history. Conditions ordered may be properly based upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense. Thus, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.
Authority:
People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 404-405
In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1120-1122
People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 380
People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121
Sixth Holding:
Nothing in the record suggests the offenses underlying the minor’s conduct were gang-related. Thus, we examine the record as a whole to determine if the gang conditions were reasonably related to preventing future criminality. In doing so, we find no indication of gang involvement. The record here presents no nexus sufficient to warrant the order of gang conditions
Authority:
People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379-380
In re Edward B. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1228, 1236 [striking gang conditions because any connection between the minor’s offense and gang activity is speculation]
Seventh Holding:
Though the prosecutor argued in favor of the gangs condition, without a more specific connection to the record, expert opinion, or the minor’s personal circumstances, a district attorney’s non-expert observations cannot reasonably justify the imposition of gang conditions.
Authority:
People v. Stanley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 913, 961 fn. 10 [It is axiomatic that argument is not evidence]