In re R.G. CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 6/8/26 In re R.G. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re R.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, E086474

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J304768)

v. OPINION

R.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gerladine

Williams, Judge. Affirmed with directions.

Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Arlene A. Sevidal

Assistant Attorneys General, Eric A. Swenson and Daniel J. Hilton, Deputy

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 INTRODUCTION

The San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a Welfare and

Institutions Code1 section 602 petition alleging that R.G. (minor), committed

felony assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (GBI). (Pen. Code,

§ 245, subd. (a)(4).) Minor admitted committing misdemeanor assault, and a

juvenile court adjudged him a ward of the court and placed him on probation

under various conditions.

On appeal, minor contends the probation condition that prohibits him from

associating with anyone he knew was a gang member should be stricken. We

conclude the condition should be modified. In all other respects, we affirm the

order granting probation.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At a park after school, minor approached Julian H. (the victim) from behind

and pushed him on the back of the head, while the victim was sitting on a bench.

The victim stood up and was approached by minor’s friend, Aaron C. Aaron C.

took a fighting stance and proceeded to hit the victim in the face with a closed fist

approximately four times. The victim tried to block Aaron C.’s punches and then

grabbed him, causing both Aaron C. and him (the victim) to fall to the ground.

While they were on the ground, minor approached the victim from behind and

struck his head and back with a closed fist approximately eight times. Another

1 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 friend of minor, James V., approached the victim from behind and struck him on

the back of the head with a closed fist and kicked his back. Aaron C. stood up

from the ground and continued to hit the victim on the back and head. The victim

stayed on the ground in a crouched position and blocked his head with his arms.

Then, minor kicked him on the front part of his body.

The attack was recorded. James V. posted the video to Instagram and

Aaron C. reposted it to his own account. The video depicted the assault with the

caption, “Big Smokie got up on dat nikkak lamesk ni--a2 really thought we was

gonna let that shi slide.” Aaron C.’s Instagram profile featured the name

“Smokie.” A School Resource Officer (SRO) searched Aaron C.’s belongings and

found a paper with the word “Smokie” written in graffiti style writing.

The victim contacted the SRO via telephone, and the following is a

summary of the victim’s statement: he went to the bus stop across the street from

Heritage Park and sat on a bench. He was approached by a student who asked him

why he added that student’s girlfriend on social media. The victim was then

challenged to a fight by another student, and he said he did not want to fight. The

victim was then hit on the head, arms, and back multiple times. When asked why

the students hit him, the victim said they were upset about a rumor of him adding

one of their girlfriends [on social media]. He stated the student’s girlfriend was

2 This is a form of the “N” word.

3 his ex, and her name was Audrey. The SRO knew Audrey was a student who was

in a dating relationship with James V.

Minor was brought into the school office and gave a written statement

saying that he and his friends “‘beat up someone by the park after school.’” Minor

stated he did not know the student they fought, and he joined the fight because his

friends were fighting.

On June 4, 2025, the People filed a juvenile delinquency petition charging

minor with assault by force likely to cause GBI (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)).

He denied the charge, and the court ordered him detained at home.

The court held a hearing on July 2, 2025. The probation officer

recommended that the court place minor on probation, under various conditions,

including No. 14 which stated: “Do not associate or communicate with your co-

participant and anyone you know who is on probation, parole, or a gang member.”

(hereinafter, the association condition)

Minor’s counsel objected to the association condition. First, she informed

the court that minor had a brother named R.G. who resided with him, and she

asked that the court “make an exception for that brother.” Then, counsel asked the

court to strike the language “or a gang member” from the association condition,

citing In re Edward B. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1228 (Edward B.). Minor’s counsel

argued that the language/term did not have a reasonable connection to the offense

and was not related to future criminality. Counsel argued that “[i]t cannot be

based off speculation,” noting minor’s cohort had a nickname of “Smokey” which

4 was on a social media app, but there was no evidence in the police report that

talked about a gang; further, it was not alleged that minor was in a gang or

associated with one.

The People conceded there was “no specific reference to [minor] being a

part of the gang,” but argued that the assault in this case was “an unprovoked

assault on a person with multiple people assaulting the same victim, which is

suggestive of a gang-type crime.” The People further stated, “the report about the

assault on social media [] basically does look like it could have had something to

do with a gang.” The People quoted the caption on the social media post and

concluded, “That sounds like it’s a confirmation that this person disregarded [sic],

which is very common in the gang culture.”

After hearing counsel’s arguments, the court concluded: “[B]ased on the

indicia that’s been referenced to by the [People], the Court does find the words

‘[o]r a gang member’ to be applicable in this case and should remain. However,

the Court will grant the request as to the exception for the brother.” Thus, the

association condition was interlineated to read: “Do not associate or communicate

with your co-participant and anyone you know who is on probation, parole, or a

gang member, exception brother [R.G.].” (Italics added.)

The court then granted the People’s motion to designate the offense as a

misdemeanor, and minor admitted the allegation. The court adjudged him a ward,

placed him on probation under the specified conditions as modified, and released

him to the custody of his mother.

5 Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

The Association Condition Should Be Modified

Minor contends the association condition, which prohibits him from

knowingly associating with gang members, must be stricken as unreasonable,

since it is unrelated to his offense, relates to conduct that is not criminal, and is not

related to future criminality. The People concede that associating with gang

members is not criminal but argue that the condition is reasonably related to the

instant offense and to preventing future criminality. We agree with minor but note

he is not challenging the entire association condition, just the prohibition against

associating with gang members. Accordingly, we will modify that portion of the

condition only.

A. Relevant Law

The juvenile court “has wide discretion to select appropriate conditions and

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.’”’” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889.) Although courts

have broad discretion to set conditions of probation, “the trial court’s discretion in

setting the conditions of probation is not unbounded.” (People v. Lopez (1998) 66

Cal.App.4th 615, 624.) A term of probation is invalid 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

6 not reasonably related to future criminality . . . ’ [Citation.] Conversely, a

condition of probation which requires or forbids conduct which is not itself

criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the

minor was convicted or to future criminality.” (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d

481, 486 (Lent).)

B. The Gang Portion of the Association Condition is Not Valid Under Lent

When a gang condition imposed by the juvenile court involves non-

criminal conduct and prohibits a minor from engaging in otherwise legal conduct,

“we can uphold it only if there is a reasonable connection between the condition

and the offense or between the condition and future criminality.” (Edward B.,

supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 1236; see also, People v. Brandão (2012) 210

Cal.App.4th 568, 574 (Brandão).) Gang-related probation conditions are

reasonably related to preventing future criminality when there is evidence of the

minor’s affiliation with criminal street gangs. (Edward B., supra, 10 Cal.App.5th

at p. 1236 [“in the absence of evidence of gang affiliation or association with gang

members or risk of gang involvement on [the minor’s] part, the gang condition is

not tailored to his future criminality”].)

Here, nothing in the record suggests that minor’s offense was gang related,

that he has ties to any criminal street gangs, or that any of his family members

have gang ties. Significantly, at the hearing, the People admitted there was “no

specific reference to [minor] being a part of the gang.” Thus, the portion of the

association condition prohibiting minor from associating or communicating with

7 gang members is not tailored to his future criminality. (Brandão, supra, 210

Cal.App.4th at pp. 576-577; Edward B., supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 1236.)

The People concede “the record does not conclusively establish that the

crime was a gang offense.” Nonetheless, they argue the gang portion of the

association condition is reasonably related to the crime because minor “worked

together with his co-participants to commit their coordinated attack on the victim.”

Further, one of his co-participants posted a video of the attack on social media

with the caption “Big Smokie got up on dat nikkak lamesk [] really thought we

was gonna let that shi slide,” and the other co-participant reposted the video. The

People also claim there was “some indicia” that co-participant Aaron C. “might

have some gang connections,” pointing to his nickname “Smokie,” which was

found on his social media profile, as well as the caption in the video and a piece of

paper found in his belongings.

Assuming Aaron C. “might have some gang connections,” as the People

aver, it is unclear how such tenuous connections show that the current assault was

gang related. In other words, any connection between minor’s offense and gang

activity is speculative. (See Edward B., supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 1236.)

The People next argue that the gang portion of the association condition is

reasonably related to preventing future criminality because minor was “far more at

risk of gang association than the average minor.” The People point to his

emotional troubles from his father’s passing two years prior. They further claim

“it appears” that minor’s brother is a gang member, since, before asking for the

8 gang portion of the condition to be stricken, defense counsel stated minor had a

brother named R.G. and asked the court to “make an exception” for him, because

he lived with minor.

The court was informed that defense counsel wanted to discuss the

association condition. {RT 105} When the court invited her to comment, counsel

stated, “The minor does have a brother whose name is [R.G.], and we ask the court

to make an exception for that brother, and I believe that the brother does reside

with the minor.” {RT 105-106} Counsel then said, “Also, Your Honor, we would

ask the Court to strike . . . just the language ‘gang term’” and cited Edward B.,

supra. {RT 106} The record indicates counsel’s requests to make an exception for

minor’s brother and to remove the gang language from the condition were

separate. {RT 105-106} More significantly, defense counsel did not state or even

suggest that minor’s brother was a gang member, and there is no evidence in the

record to support such a claim.

Further, we note the association condition prohibits minor from associating

or communicating with anyone he knows “who is on probation, parole, or a gang

member.” (Italics added.) {CT 38} It is purely speculative to conclude from

defense counsel’s request that minor’s brother was a gang member. Given the

sequence of defense counsel’s request, first asking for an exception for minor’s

brother and then asking to strike the gang term, and the lack of evidence that

minor’s brother was in a gang, it is likely he was on probation or parole, and the

9 court made an exception for him so that he or minor would not be forced to move

out of their residence.

We conclude that, in the absence of evidence of gang affiliation or

association with gang members on minor’s part, the gang portion of the

association condition is not tailored to his future criminality. (Edward B., supra,

10 Cal.App.5th at p. 1236; see Brandão, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.)

Therefore, since minor is only challenging the portion of the association condition

prohibiting him from associating with gang members, we will only strike that part

of the condition. (See Brandão, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pp. 577-578.) The

association condition is amended to delete the part that says “or a gang member”

so that it will read, “Do not associate or communicate with your co-participant and

anyone you know who is on probation or parole, exception brother [R.G.].”

10 DISPOSITION

The association condition is modified to read, “Do not associate or

communicate with your co-participant and anyone you know who is on probation

or parole, exception brother [R.G.].” In all other respects, the order of the juvenile

court granting probation is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J. RAPHAEL J.