Error and/or relief
The minor challenges several conditions of probation. We modify two of them.
First Holding:
The juvenile court has wide discretion to select appropriate probation conditions and may impose any reasonable condition that is fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. The juvenile court’s discretion, while broad, is not unlimited.
A probation condition is invalid if 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.
In order to invalidate a condition of probation under this Lent test, all three factors must be found to be present. A condition of probation that would be unconstitutional or otherwise improper for an adult probationer may be permissible for a minor under the supervision of the juvenile court.
Authority:
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889
In re J.B. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 749, 754
People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486
Second Holding:
We review a juvenile court’s imposition of a probation condition for an abuse of discretion.
Authority:
In re Daniel R. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1, 6
Third Holding:
Hearsay can at least sometimes be considered at dispositional hearings, and courts may base probation conditions upon information in probation reports.
Authority:
In re Vincent G. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 238, 243–244
In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122
Fourth Holding:
Probation conditions are to be given the meaning that would appear to a reasonable reader. We modify the probation condition that the minor not be around anyone known to him to be in possession of any dangerous or deadly weapons by inserting “known to him to be unlawfully in possession of the same.”
Authority:
People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382
(Gary note: Olguin supports the first sentence of that summary of the holding. The court did not cite any specific authority in the paragraphs in which it modified the language of that condition itself. However, In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889, authorizes an appellate court to modify conditions of probation to render them constitutional.)
Fifth Holding:
A probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the defendant’s constitutional rights.
People have a constitutional right to self-defense. The condition that “The minor shall not commit any act of violence against anyone” must be tailored to, “The minor shall not commit any act of violence against anyone, except for acts of lawful self-defense.”
Authority:
Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 1
In re Carlos C. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 997, 1002, 1004
People v. McDonnell (1917) 32 Cal.App. 694, 704