Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Juan R.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

May 2, 2018

In re JUAN R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
JUAN R., Defendant and Appellant.

          Superior Court of Marin County, No. JV26402, Beverly K. Wood, Judge.

          Gail E. Chesney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

          Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorney General, Amit Kurlekar and Violet M. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

          BRUINIERS, J.

         Fourteen-year-old Juan R. admitted committing second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). At disposition, he was placed on probation. Juan challenges the dispositional order, contending the juvenile court imposed an unreasonable and unconstitutionally overbroad probation condition. We affirm.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         In January 2017, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition (Petition A) was filed, alleging Juan committed two misdemeanors: petty theft of personal property (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)) and throwing rocks at a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 23110, subd. (a)). Without adjudging Juan a ward, the juvenile court continued further hearings for six months and placed Juan on informal probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2.

         In March 2017, the Marin County District Attorney filed a second wardship petition (Petition B), under the same case number as the first, alleging Juan committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count one) and assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (id., § 245, subd. (a)(4); count two).

         As recounted by the probation report, on March 14, 2017, C.C. was walking near a school when a juvenile male asked him for money. C.C. gave him $20. When the juvenile and four other juvenile males chased C.C., C.C. used his cell phone to take photographs of them. The juveniles caught up to C.C., pushed him to the ground, and repeatedly punched and kicked him. One juvenile reportedly had a gun and threatened to shoot C.C. if he did not delete the photos. Another of the juveniles reached in C.C.'s pocket and took his wallet, which contained approximately $150 to $200. A bystander recorded a video of the attack, which showed Juan among the involved juveniles. Juan later admitted he attacked C.C.

         At the detention hearing, Juan's diversion on Petition A was revoked, and he was ordered detained in juvenile hall. At the jurisdictional hearing, Juan admitted committing the second degree robbery (count one of Petition B) and signed a waiver of rights. The juvenile court declared count one a felony and dismissed count two.

         The probation department's dispositional report indicated Juan was chronically truant, received poor grades, and had been suspended from school twice, as well as disciplined for sexual harassment and vandalism. Although Juan denied being in a gang, several of his coparticipants were admitted gang members affiliated with the Norteños.[1] Juan reported experimenting with alcohol and using marijuana regularly to “stop [himself] from getting mad.” Juan's mother reported violence and substance abuse in the family home. Juan's father had been deported approximately a year prior, and Juan's mother reported being illiterate and feeling overwhelmed by Juan's behavior.

         The probation department recommended Juan be placed on formal wardship probation subject to several conditions. One of the recommended conditions required Juan to “[s]ubmit to search of electronic devices at any time of the day or night by any law enforcement officer, probation officer, or mandatory supervision officer with or without a warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion including cell phones over which the minor has control over or access to for electronic communication content information likely to reveal evidence that the minor is continuing his criminal activities and is continuing his association via text or social media with co-companions. This search should be confined to areas of the electronic devices including social media accounts, applications, websites where such evidence of criminality [or] probation violation may be found. [¶]... The minor must provide access/passwords to these electronic devices, accounts, applications, websites to any law enforcement officer, probation officer or mandatory supervision officer.” (Italics added & underscoring omitted.)

         At the contested dispositional hearing, which related only to Petition B, Juan's trial counsel objected to the electronic search condition.[2] The juvenile court adjudged Juan a ward of the court and placed him on indefinite supervised probation. Numerous probation conditions were imposed, including the recommended electronic search condition. Juan was also prohibited, inter alia, from possessing or consuming alcohol and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.