Appellant Byron B. and two juvenile accomplices stole a video game player and some “cool” shoes from an acquaintance’s house. As a result, appellant was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on
I, II *
III
“NO CONTACT” PROBATION CONDITION
Appellant asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion by imposing a probation condition prohibiting contact with any person disapproved by a parent or probation officer.
The juvenile court’s oral ruling stated that appellant must “[n]ot have any direct or indirect contact with anyone disapproved by parent, guardian, probation officer or staff.” Its minute order, however, recited that appellant must “[n]ot have direct or indirect contact with anyone known to be disapproved by parent(s)/guardian(s)/probation officer, staff.” (Italics added.)
Appellant did not object to this condition at sentencing. The People therefore argue that he waived his challenge to it, although they acknowledge that there is contrary authority. (See
In re Justin S.
(2001)
“A juvenile court is vested with broad discretion to select appropriate probation conditions. [Citation.] The court 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.’ ([Welf. & Inst. Code,] § 730, subd. (b).)”
(In re Antonio C.
(2000)
An adult probation condition is unreasonable 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 . . . .’ [Citation.]”
(People
v.
Lent
(1975)
However, “[t]he juvenile court’s broad discretion to fashion appropriate conditions of probation is distinguishable from that exercised by an adult court when sentencing an adult offender to probation. Although the goal of both types of probation is the rehabilitation of the offender, ‘[jjuvenile probation is not, as with an adult, an act of leniency in lieu of statutory punishment; it is an ingredient of a final
We are aware of two cases dealing with a probation condition like the one here. First, in
In re Frank V.
(1991)
The appellate court upheld the condition. It began by noting that: “Although minors possess constitutional rights [citation], ‘[i]t is equally well established . . . that the liberty interest of a minor is not coextensive with that
of an adult. “[E]ven where there is an invasion of protected freedoms ‘the power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults.’ ” [Citations.] Parents, of course, have powers greater than that of the state to curtail a child’s exercise of the constitutional rights the child may otherwise enjoy, for a parent’s own constitutionally protected “liberty” includes the right to “bring up children” [citation,] and to “direct the upbringing and education of children.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] [][] Frank was declared a ward of the court, which acts in
parens
patriae.”
(In re Frank V., supra,
233 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1242-1243, quoting
In re Roger S.
(1977)
The court concluded: “His purchase of the .38-caliber automatic discovered in his jacket from an unknown ‘person on the streets’ demonstrates the need for such control and the rational relation between the crime and the condition. The juvenile court could not reasonably be expected to define with precision all classes of persons which might influence Frank to commit further bad acts. It may instead rely on the discretion of his parents, and the probation department acting as parent, to promote and nurture his rehabilitation.” (In re Frank V., supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p 1243.) “The probation condition is consistent with the rehabilitative purpose of probation and constitutional parental authority. Frank’s constitutional right of association has not been impermissibly burdened.” (Ibid.)
Next, in
In re Kacy S.
(1998)
The crucial difference between
Kacy S.
and
Frank V.
is that the valid probation
The probation condition here referred to persons “disapproved.” Thus, Frank V. applies. The juvenile court, acting in parens patriae, could limit appellant’s right of association in ways that it arguably could not limit an adult’s. Appellant asserts that the condition “is too broad to be reasonably related to future criminality. . . . [TJhere is nothing to suggest that the minor routinely got in trouble by associating with the wrong types of people.” In Frank V., however, there likewise was no evidence that the minor “routinely” associated with “bad eggs.” Here, as in Frank V., there was evidence that, solely in the case before the court, appellant’s misconduct had been influenced by other people. Indeed, here appellant acted in concert with two other delinquents.
So far, we have been discussing only unreasonableness and over-breadth. However, a probation condition also may be challenged as excessively vague. “ ‘It is an essential component of due process that individuals be given fair notice of those acts which may lead to a loss of liberty. [Citations.] This is true whether the loss of liberty arises from a criminal conviction or the revocation of probation. [Citations.] [][] “ ‘Fair notice’ requires only that a violation be described with a ‘ “reasonable degree of certainty” ’ ... so that ‘ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.’ ....”’ [Citation.]”
(In re Angel J.
(1992)
We may assume, without deciding, that a probation condition prohibiting contact with disapproved persons regardless of whether the minor knew of the disapproval would be unconstitutionally vague. (See
In re Justin S., supra,
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Hollenhorst, Acting P. J., and Gaut, J., concurred.
Notes
See footnote, ante, page 1013.