Opinion
C081354
11-02-2017
In re C.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.R., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. JDSQ1574, JDSQ1629)
Minor C.R. contends the probation conditions restricting him from appearing in court or being within 100 yards of the juvenile hall must be stricken as unconstitutionally overbroad. Finding the minor's claims have merit, we will modify various probation conditions and affirm the judgment as modified.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A detailed recitation of the facts underlying the minor's juvenile wardship petitions is unnecessary for the disposition of this appeal. Relevant facts will be discussed where appropriate.
On February 9, 2015, the minor admitted violating Penal Code section 242 as alleged in a juvenile wardship petition filed in Sonoma County Juvenile Court (case No. JDSQ1574) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a). The case was transferred to Yolo County Juvenile Court. In the meantime, on January 4, 2016, the minor was assigned to the custody of his parents subject to supervisory probation and ordered to abide by specified probation conditions, including general condition 37(a) that required the minor to "[c]omply with attached specific conditions relative to Gang Identified minors." The attached specific conditions, entitled, "Probation/Wardship Conditions for Gang Identified Minors," including special condition 3 prohibiting the minor from appearing "in or about any court unless you are a party to a proceeding or you have been subpoenaed to appear at a hearing," and special condition 4 prohibiting the minor from being "within one hundred (100) yards of the juvenile hall unless you are in custody in the hall or attending your own court hearing in juvenile court."
On January 20, 2016, the minor was charged by a second juvenile wardship petition (case No. JDSQ1629) alleging unlawful use or influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)--count 1), resisting or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)--count 2), and a city curfew violation (City of Woodland Muni. Code, § 15-24 -- count 3), all misdemeanors. That same day, the probation department filed a notice of hearing in case No. JDSQ1574 alleging the minor violated probation by absconding from his court-ordered placement.
At the February 9, 2016 contested jurisdiction hearing on both cases, the juvenile court granted the People's motion to dismiss count 1 in case No. JDSQ1629, and heard testimony from City of Woodland Police Officers Brian Eaes and Kyle Konze. On the second day of the hearing, the court denied the People's motion for leave to amend the petition, but granted the People's motion to dismiss the notice of hearing regarding the alleged probation violation in case No. JDSQ1574. Following testimony by the minor's mother and father, the court granted the minor's motion to dismiss count 3 in case No. JDSQ1629. The court sustained the petition in case No. JDSQ1629 as to the sole remaining count alleging resisting or obstructing a peace officer. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)--count 2.)
At the February 29, 2016 disposition hearing, the juvenile court continued the minor as a ward of the court and ordered, among other things, that the minor comply with specified probation conditions, including general condition 37(a) that required the minor to "[c]omply with attached specific conditions relative to Gang Identified minors." As relevant to this appeal, the attachment, entitled, "Probation/Wardship Conditions for Gang Identified Minors," included special condition 3 that provided, "You are not to appear in or about any court unless you are a party to a proceeding or you have been subpoenaed to appear at a hearing"; and condition 4 that provided, "You are not to be within one hundred (100) yards of the juvenile hall unless you are in custody in the hall or attending your own court hearing in juvenile court."
Minor's counsel objected to general condition 37(a) stating: "I am going to object to Term 37. I don't believe that this court, and I could be wrong, as I recall this court has not previously imposed that. The most recent cause as known facts to support a need to add Term 37. It was alleged that [the minor] committed a violation of Penal Code [section] 148[, subdivision] (a)(1). I don't feel that that is appropriate Term No. 37." The court overruled the objection and issued its findings and orders, noting general condition 37 had been in place since October 20, 2015 and, on January 4, 2016, subdivision (b) of condition 37 was stricken, leaving subdivision (a) in place. With regard to the minor's placement, the probation officer informed the court the minor "had multiple incidents while being in the juvenile hall," including, "talking, disrupting line movement . . . yelling out of his door . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . using fo[u]l language and pretty much gang terminology to the opposing gang . . . [being] defiant and tr[ying] to incite a fight, and . . . inciting the opposing gang to start a fight."
The minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
The minor contends special probation conditions 3 and 4, imposed by the juvenile court pursuant to general probation condition 37(a), are unconstitutionally overbroad. The People respond that the minor forfeited his challenge to special condition 4 because he did not specifically object to the condition in the juvenile court and, in any event, special conditions 3 and 4 were specifically tailored to fit the minor's need for reformation and rehabilitation and to deter him from further dangerous gang behavior. The minor claims he adequately objected below, the forfeiture rule does not apply to conditions that can be decided as pure questions of law, and the People failed to demonstrate how the conditions are closely tailored to serve a legitimate purpose or why they were necessary in light of the court's imposition of conditions specifically restricting gang activity and criminal behavior.
The People concede that, although the minor did not specifically object to special condition 3, the minor's challenge was nonetheless preserved for appeal due to "the probation officer's comments on [the minor's] behavior at juvenile hall." --------
As we shall explain, special conditions 3 and 4 are overbroad and thus facially unconstitutional, requiring modification even though the minor did not specifically object to those special conditions in the juvenile court.
Special condition 3 prohibited the minor from "appear[ing] in or about any court unless you are a party to a proceeding or you have been subpoenaed to appear at a hearing." Special condition 4 prohibited the minor from being "within one hundred (100) yards of the juvenile hall unless you are in custody in the hall or attending your own court hearing in juvenile court."
As a preliminary matter, we conclude the forfeiture rule does not apply to the constitutional challenge to special conditions 3 and 4. Our Supreme Court has determined the forfeiture rule does not apply when a probation condition is challenged as unconstitutionally vague or overbroad on its face and the claim can be resolved on appeal as a pure question of law without reference to the sentencing record. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 885-889 (Sheena K.); People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 953 (Leon).) We now turn to the merits to determine whether special conditions 3 and 4 are unconstitutionally overbroad on their face.
"A restriction is unconstitutionally overbroad . . . if it (1) 'impinge[s] on constitutional rights,' and (2) is not 'tailored carefully and reasonably related to the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation.' [Citation.]" (In re E.O. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1152-1153 (E.O.); accord, Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890.) " 'A statute or regulation is overbroad if it "does not aim specifically at evils within the allowable area of [governmental] control, but . . . sweeps within its ambit other activities that in the ordinary circumstances constitute an exercise" of protected expression and conduct.' [Citation.]" (Leon, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 951.) "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--bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement." (E.O., at pp. 1152-1153.)
Special condition 3 prevents the minor from appearing "in or about any court." While the minor has no right to be present at any juvenile delinquency or dependency proceedings (which are confidential and not open to the public) in which he is not a party or a witness, he correctly asserts special condition 3 prevents him from appearing in any criminal, civil, or delinquency proceeding for which he is either a party or a witness. Special condition 4 similarly prohibits him from being present in juvenile court as a party or a witness. In that regard, the conditions impinge on his constitutional right to attend court proceedings. (See People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 759, 766-767 [acknowledging a First Amendment right of access to civil and criminal court proceedings]; Leon, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 952-953 [same].) Both conditions further prohibit the minor from voluntarily accessing public resources in and around courthouses, juvenile hall, and government facilities. This, too, is an unconstitutional restraint on the minor's liberties. (People v. Perez (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 380, 383-385; E.O., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1154-1156; Leon, at p. 953.)
The People argue both conditions were narrowly tailored to the minor's recent and dangerous gang-related behavior at juvenile hall, as evidenced by the probation officer's statements at the disposition hearing that the minor was involved in multiple incidents in juvenile hall, including talking, disrupting line movement, yelling, using foul language, and using gang terminology toward opposing gang members, being defiant, and inciting opposing gang members to fight. The People further argue that, because the minor engaged in such behaviors while in the controlled setting of juvenile hall, it was reasonable to infer he might engage in similar behavior in the less-controlled setting of a courthouse.
In response, the minor asserts the juvenile court imposed other unchallenged probation conditions that adequately prohibit the gang activity special conditions 3 and 4 were intended to address. In that regard, the court imposed special condition 1 that provides: "You are not to associate with any person whom you know, or whom the probation officer informs you, is a gang member. For purposes of these conditions, the word gang means a criminal street gang as defined in Penal Code section 186.22." The court also imposed special condition 2 that provides: "You are not to possess, wear or display any clothing or insignias, emblems, badges, or buttons that you know, or the probation officer informs you, are evidence of affiliation with or membership in a gang, nor display any signs or gestures that you know, or that the probation officer informs you, are gang gestures."
While the unchallenged conditions address gang-related behavior to prevent the minor from associating with gang members and from wearing, possessing, or displaying criminal street gang paraphernalia, signs, or gestures, they do not specifically address the minor's potential proximity to or presence at court or juvenile hall. The People argue the purpose of special conditions 3 and 4 was to address the minor's "recent, dangerous gang-related behavior and serve[] the state's interest in [the minor's] reformation and rehabilitation." At the very least, we infer the juvenile court's purpose in imposing the challenged conditions was to protect witnesses, parties to court proceedings, and court personnel, as well as persons employed by, in custody at, or a visitor to juvenile hall.
In Leon, the court considered a constitutional challenge to a condition that stated, "You shall not appear at any court proceeding unless you're a party, you're a defendant in a criminal action, subpoenaed as a witness, or with permission of probation." (Leon, supra, at p. 952.) To limit infringement on the defendant's First Amendment right of access to court proceedings, the court modified the condition to provide: "You shall not be present at any court proceeding where you know or the probation officer informs you that a member of a criminal street gang is present or that the proceeding concerns a member of a criminal street gang unless you are a party, you are a defendant in a criminal action, you are subpoenaed as a witness, or you have the prior permission of your probation officer." (Leon, at p. 954.)
Like the condition challenged in Leon, special conditions 3 and 4 are "neither 'limited to protecting specific witnesses or parties' nor 'confined to trials involving gang members' " and are so broad they prevent activities unrelated to future criminality. (Leon, supra, at p. 953.) As such, guided by the court in Leon, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pages 953-955, we will order the following modifications to special conditions 3 and 4:
Special condition 3 shall be modified to read as follows: "You shall not be present at any court proceeding where you know or the probation officer informs you that a member of a criminal street gang is present or the proceeding concerns a member of a criminal street gang unless you are a party, you are a defendant in a criminal action, you are appearing as a witness, or you have the prior permission of your probation officer."
Special condition 4 shall be modified to read as follows: "You shall not be present in the juvenile hall or a courthouse where there are juvenile courts where you know or the probation officer informs you that a member of a criminal street gang is present or the proceeding concerns a member of a criminal street gang unless you are in custody in the hall, you are a party to an action in a juvenile court, you are appearing as a witness, or you have the prior permission of your probation officer."
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court is ordered to modify conditions 3 and 4 of the "Probation/Wardship Conditions for Gang Identified Minors" as set forth in this opinion. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
HOCH, J. We concur: /s/_________
BUTZ, Acting P. J. /s/_________
MURRAY, J.