In Re Angel J.

People v. Angel J.

Good Law
11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1119·9 Cal. App. 4th 1096·92 Daily Journal DAR 12877·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7940
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 26, 1992D014325California3,618 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wiener, J.

*1099 Opinion

Angel J. appeals from a judgment finding him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 1 § 602) on true findings of possession of a nunchaku (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)). He was placed on probation with several conditions including one requiring Angel to maintain satisfactory grades in school, and a second restricting him from being in vehicles with more than one other minor without parental supervision. Angel contends: (1) the court erred in admitting statements obtained in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination; (2) there was insufficient evidence of possession; (3) the condition of satisfactory grades is improper; and (4) the vehicle restriction condition is not reasonably related to his background. We conclude Angel’s first two assertions are without merit. We conclude, however, that “satisfactory” requires further definition and interpret it to mean that Angel shall attain grades that are satisfactory to the school authorities, i.e., passing grades. We also decide the vehicle restriction is unsupported by the record and order it stricken. As so modified we affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

On November 10, 1990, at…

Concurrence in Part

Froehlich, J.

See footnote, ante, page 1096.

Opinion

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [*] ]

OPINION

WIENER, Acting P.J.

Angel J. appeals from a judgment finding him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, [1] § 602) on true findings of possession of a nunchaku (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)). He was placed on probation with several conditions including one requiring Angel to maintain satisfactory grades in school, and a second restricting him from being in vehicles with more than one other minor without parental supervision. Angel contends: (1) the court erred in admitting statements obtained in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination; (2) there was insufficient evidence of possession; (3) the condition of satisfactory grades is improper; and (4) the vehicle restriction condition is not reasonably related to his background. We conclude Angel's first two assertions are without merit. We conclude, however, that "satisfactory" requires further definition and interpret it to mean that Angel shall attain grades that are satisfactory to the school authorities, i.e., passing grades. We also decide the vehicle restriction is unsupported by the record and order it stricken. As so modified we affirm the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.