In re A.V. CA2/6, B335863

A.V. was found to have committed battery against W.V., with whom he had a dating relationship, and was declared a ward of the court under juvenile law.
The incident occurred at W.V.'s home, where A.V. tightly squeezed W.V. until intervention was required.
A.V. struggled with drug addiction, undergoing multiple rehabilitation attempts in Mexico and in the United States, with relapses documented in court.
The juvenile court, sensitive to A.V.'s addiction issues, imposed probation, including a ban on unlawful drug and alcohol use, substance abuse counseling, and regular recovery meetings.
A.V. appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence of a dating relationship and constitutionality of the probation condition barring drug and alcohol use.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for dating relationship	Enough evidence A.V. and W.V. frequently saw each other; testified as boyfriend/girlfriend	Did not have a qualifying dating relationship	Sufficient evidence; court credited testimony
Probation ban on drugs/alcohol is overbroad	Tailored to address substance abuse	Prohibition is unreasonable, needed treatment not abstinence	Not overbroad; condition appropriate
Probation condition as cruel/unusual punishment	Court attuned to addiction; supportive interventions	Addiction is illness; can't simply admonish away	No Eighth Amendment violation found

People v. Upsher, 155 Cal.App.4th 1311 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (Defines and discusses what qualifies as a dating relationship under the Penal Code)
People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (Cal. 2009) (Outlines standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
People v. Manibusan, 58 Cal.4th 40 (Cal. 2013) (Affirms that assessing witness credibility is for the trial court)
People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149 (Cal. 2005) (Clarifies standard of review for factual findings)
People v. Maciel, 57 Cal.4th 482 (Cal. 2013) (Mandates finding all reasonable inferences in support of judgment)