Court Opinion

ID: 9380256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 18:02:42.473116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:38.151640
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/17/23 In re S.B. CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

           IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 In re S.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile
 Court Law.

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                 F085036

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                 (Fresno Super. Ct.
                                                                                    No. 22CEJ600115-1)
                    v.

 S.B.,                                                                                    OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT *
         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Virna L. Santos,
Judge.
         Candice L. Christensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General,
Louis M. Vasquez, Lewis A. Martinez, and Joseph Penney, Deputy Attorneys General,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

         * Before     Poochigian, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.
       Appellant challenges the juvenile court’s probation condition limiting his access to
phones/electronics. The Attorney General concedes the probation condition should be
modified but not to the extent requested by appellant. We largely accept the Attorney
General’s position, modify the condition, and affirm.
                                    BACKGROUND
       On April 5, 2022, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship
petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) pertaining to appellant S.B. The petition alleged
appellant committed an assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (count 1;
Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)),1 and battery with serious bodily injury (count 2; § 243,
subd. (d).) A great bodily injury enhancement was alleged as to each count. (§ 12022.7,
subd. (a).)
       An order filed on July 26, 2022, reflects appellant admitted count 1, and that
count 2 was dismissed. A dispositional hearing was held September 21, 2022, wherein
the court committed appellant to the Juvenile Justice Center for 90 days and placed him
on probation for one year. The court imposed a probation condition concerning
electronic devices. That condition is the focal point of the present appeal and is described
further below.
       On September 29, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging his
probation conditions.
                                          FACTS2
       A 14-year-old male (i.e., “the victim”) told police he was returning to a motel after
visiting a food truck. He observed 8 to 10 individuals near the pool. About half of the
group were males and the other half were females. One of them asked the victim if he
skated, and he responded affirmatively.

       1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
       2 Because appellant admitted to count 1, we take the facts from the police report
and the probation officer’s detention hearing memorandum.

                                             2.
        Shortly thereafter, the victim observed the group smoking marijuana and drinking
alcohol while sitting around the pool. The victim told the group “it was likely not a good
spot to be doing that.” The individuals told the victim to “shut up,” pushed him to the
ground, and began to hit and kick him. The group attacked him for about a minute and a
half.
        The victim identified two of the female attackers by first name, saying he knew
them from a prior stay at a behavioral health hospital. He also described a male attacker
as having curly brown hair wearing jeans and a black shirt.
        When police arrived, the victim had a “severely” swollen face, which was covered
with blood that was dripping onto his clothing. It was later determined the victim also
had a broken nose.
        The next day police obtained a video of the assault. The video showed several
assailants punching and kicking the victim mainly in the head and face while he was on
the ground. The assailants were telling him to say he was sorry. The victim was trying to
guard his head with his hands and was saying, “ ‘Please.’ ” Appellant told the victim to
put his hands down. Appellant held a cell phone to his face and said, “ ‘Look at you, you
look like a bitch right now. You look like a bitch right now, huh?’ ” Appellant then
kicked the victim in the face. The victim lay on the ground while the assailants continued
to kick him in the face.
        Appellant later claimed that one of the females in his group accused the victim of
sexually assaulting her during a prior stay at a mental hospital. Appellant said that was
why he and the others assaulted the victim. Appellant admitted he hit the victim “quite a
bit.” Appellant admitted that what he had done was “ ‘messed up.’ ”
        At an in-field lineup, the victim identified appellant as the one who pushed him to
the ground and led the fight.
        The video of the assault quickly spread across the school campus where the victim
was to attend.

                                             3.
       Disposition Hearing
       The victim’s mother requested that appellant be kept in custody for two years.
She emphasized that “[a] lot of people around town saw this video” of the assault.
       The court stated that it had watched the video and that it was “very difficult to
watch and I can only imagine how you feel every time, you know, the video is out there
and how your son must feel knowing that almost everybody he knows and he doesn’t
know saw this video. I know he’s still being victimized because of it.”
       Probation Condition
       At the dispositional hearing, the court said,

               “I’m also going to order because phone, internet, social media was a
       factor in this case during the period of probation. You’re not to use a
       phone. You’re not to have a phone, mom. No phone. No electronics to
       include video games during the period of probation. They’re only to be for
       school because I know for school they’re required but that’s it. That’s it.
       That’s the order for the whole period of probation.”
       The court later reiterated, “The use of the internet was used to victimize this
minor. The phone was used to victimize the minor. That’s an order.”
       In the written disposition order, the court ordered: “No use of cell phone, social
media, electronics including game stations. May only use computer/internet for school
purposes only.”
                                       DISCUSSION
       “When a probation condition imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional
rights, it ‘ “must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition” ’ – that
is, the probationer’s reformation and rehabilitation – ‘ “to avoid being invalidated as
unconstitutionally overbroad.” ’ [Citations.] ‘The essential question in an overbreadth
challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and
the burden it imposes on the [probationer]’s constitutional rights – bearing in mind, of
course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will

                                              4.
justify some infringement.’ [Citation.] ‘ “ ‘Even conditions which infringe on
constitutional rights may not be invalid [as long as they are] tailored specifically to meet
the needs of the juvenile.’ ” ’ ” (In re P.O. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288, 297.)
       A probation condition “ ‘ “ ‘ “that would be unconstitutional or otherwise
improper for an adult probationer may be permissible for a minor under the supervision
of the juvenile court.” ’ ” ’ [Citations.] ‘This is because juveniles are deemed to be more
in need of guidance and supervision than adults, and because a minor’s constitutional
rights are more circumscribed. The state, when it asserts jurisdiction over a minor, stands
in the shoes of the parents. And a parent may “curtail a child’s exercise of …
constitutional rights … [because 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.] Whether a probation condition is
unconstitutionally overbroad presents a question of law reviewed de novo.” (In re P.O.,
supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 297.)
       Both parties agree that the probation condition is overly broad but disagree in how
it should be modified.
       Given its breadth and the Attorney General’s concession, we think some
clarification of the probation condition is in order. However, it remains important to note
that we must uphold as much of the juvenile court’s order as is constitutionally
permissible. It is not our job to completely rewrite the condition as we see fit. Instead,
we must honor the respective roles of juvenile and appellate courts by preserving as much
of the probation condition as the doctrine of overbreadth will allow.
       Breadth
       While the court’s verbal rendition referred to “phones” generally, the written order
referred to “cell phones.” The Attorney General urges that the condition be modified to
make clear that it does not extend to electronic devices that cannot access social media or
record video/audio, such as a landline phone. We agree.

                                             5.
       The juvenile court’s concern underlying this condition centered on the fact that
S.B. used the cell phone’s video recording capability to exacerbate the situation. The
same concerns do not present themselves with respect to electronics such as a landline
phones, which do not possess recording capabilities and are not mobile. Thus, we doubt
the juvenile court was intending to prohibit appellant’s access to landline phones. Even if
it had, such a restriction would not be properly tailored to appellant’s offense.
Consequently, we will modify the order accordingly.
       Allowing Electronics Approved by Probation Officer
       Appellant suggests another modification: “[t]he phone and electronics ban can be
modified to require oversight and permission by the probation officer.” But that would
not be a modification so much as a reversal of the ban. To say that appellant can use
whatever cell phones and electronics the probation officer approves is to undermine what
the juvenile court sought to do with its order. The court’s focus on cell phones was well
justified given that one was utilized during the assault and made the situation worse.
Appellant cites some generally positive factors – such as this being his first-time offense,
etc. – but none of them negate the fact that a cell phone ban is tailored to the
circumstances of the offense. We see no constitutional principle that would require the
modification proposed by appellant.
       Appellant contends that there are constructive purposes for which he might want
to use the internet. That is true. It is regrettable appellant chose to use a cell phone and
social media the way he did. The fact that a probation condition limits access to a
medium that could be used constructively does not render it unconstitutional when it is
tailored to the fact appellant actually used it destructively.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The probation condition concerning cell phones and electronics is vacated and
replaced by the following: “While S.B. is on probation, he shall not use a cell phone or
access social media for any purpose. Additionally, S.B. shall not use any other electronic

                                               6.
devices that have the capability of accessing social media, recording video/audio, or
sending messages containing video/audio content. S.B. may use a computer for
schoolwork but may not use a computer to otherwise access social media, record
video/audio or transmit video/audio to others. This restriction on using electronic devices
does not extend to landline telephones, so long as S.B.’s usage of landline telephones
complies with the remainder of his probation conditions.” As modified, the order is
affirmed.

                                            7.