People v. Edward B.
10 Cal. App. 5th 1228
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Edward B., nearly 15, admitted misdemeanor grand theft from the person after taking a 66‑year‑old woman’s bag; originally charged with robbery.
- Juvenile court committed Edward to a six‑month residential rehabilitation program (Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility) followed by 90 days conditional release, and imposed probation conditions.
- Probation conditions included (1) no association with known gang members/associates and (2) not to be on a school campus unless enrolled; the dispositional order did not state Edward’s maximum confinement term or calculate custody credits.
- Record contained no evidence Edward was a gang member or regularly associated with gang members; probation report included speculative references to an “older individual” and a father’s statement suggesting possible direction by another.
- At disposition defense objected to gang terms as unsupported; the court nevertheless imposed the association ban but declined other gang‑related conditions; court and parties agreed the dispositional order omitted maximum term/credit calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of gang‑association probation condition | AG: condition is permissible to protect minor’s rehabilitation | Edward: condition is unreasonable under Lent because it forbids lawful conduct and lacks factual nexus to offense or future risk | Struck: no factual nexus to offense or future criminality; condition not tailored to Edward’s case |
| Vagueness of school‑campus exclusion (presence unless enrolled) | AG: condition is clear and enforceable; willfulness/knowledge required to prove violation | Edward: condition is vague for lacking an express knowledge requirement about being on campus | Affirmed: condition not vague; proof requires willfulness/knowledge so no modification needed |
| Failure to state maximum confinement term and custody credits | AG: juvenile court should correct order to specify maximum term and award pre‑disposition credits | Edward: court erred by omitting maximum term and custody credit calculation | Remanded: strike gang term; remand to amend order to state maximum confinement and calculate credits for time in custody through dispositional date |
Key Cases Cited
- Lent v. California, 15 Cal.3d 481 (establishes three‑part test for probation condition validity)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (probation conditions must provide fair warning; vagueness standard)
- People v. Hall, 2 Cal.5th 494 (violation requires willfulness/knowledge)
- In re Victor L., 182 Cal.App.4th 902 (juvenile probation discretion broader but subject to limits; vagueness concerns)
- In re D.G., 187 Cal.App.4th 47 (probation conditions for juveniles must be tailored to juvenile’s needs)
- In re Babak S., 18 Cal.App.4th 1077 (no basis to uphold condition absent factual nexus)
- In re J.M., 170 Cal.App.4th 1253 (credits for custody between disposition and placement may be required)
- In re Emilio C., 116 Cal.App.4th 1058 (court must specify maximum term and calculate pre‑disposition custody credits)