In re Ricardo D. CA4/3
G052171
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- 15-year-old Ricardo D. admitted misdemeanor battery and assault and entered a plea/disposition agreement at a June 2015 detention hearing.
- The agreement placed him on juvenile probation with various conditions (work program, anger management, protective order) and Condition 10 forbade associating with persons known to be criminal street gang members or members of illegal tagging crews.
- In open court Ricardo expressly accepted the disposition and the probation terms; defense counsel voiced disagreement with the plea but only objected to the protective order, not the gang-association condition.
- The juvenile court accepted the admissions, imposed the agreed probation terms, and told Ricardo he could seek withdrawal of admissions after one year.
- Ricardo appealed, arguing the gang-association probation condition violated his First Amendment right of association and was overbroad because the record showed no gang nexus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probation condition barring association with known gang/tagging-crew members is unconstitutional/overbroad | The appeal is forfeited because Ricardo (and counsel) failed to object to the gang-association condition in the juvenile court after accepting the disposition | The condition is overbroad and unsupported by any record showing gang affiliation; Ricardo only accepted the deal to secure immediate release and counsel opposed the disposition generally | Forfeiture: Ricardo waived the claim by failing to object in the juvenile court; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brandão, 210 Cal.App.4th 568 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (invalidated a no-association gang condition where record showed no gang nexus and defendant failed to preserve distinct issues)
- In re Babak S., 18 Cal.App.4th 1077 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (probation conditions must be reasonably related to criminality and narrowly tailored)
- In re J.H., 158 Cal.App.4th 174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (standards for de novo review of constitutional challenges to juvenile probation conditions)
- People v. Gardineer, 79 Cal.App.4th 148 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (probationer must object in trial court to preserve constitutional challenge on appeal)
- In re R.V., 171 Cal.App.4th 239 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (juvenile probation condition upheld if related to crime, criminal conduct, or future criminality)
- People v. Hester, 22 Cal.4th 290 (Cal. 2000) (benefit-of-the-bargain/forfeiture principles where defendant receives agreed disposition)