Probation Terms and Juvenile Gang Offenders: In Re Pedro Q

• NCJ Number: 136541
• Journal: Journal of Juvenile Law Volume: 11 Issue: 1 Dated: (1990) Pages: 82-87
• Author(s): G Reader
• Date Published: 1990
• Length: 6 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

One method used by the California criminal justice system to deal with increased gang activity involves the imposition of appropriate terms and conditions of probation which relate to the juvenile offender's gang activities.

Abstract

In 1986, Pedro was placed on probation for assault with a deadly weapon. The following terms and conditions of probation were imposed by the court: commitment to a youth camp; no association with members of the gang to which Pedro belonged; participation in therapy and counseling as directed; submission to search and seizure; and no use or possession of alcohol, drugs, or dangerous weapons. Pedro was later charged with violating his probation and was committed to the California Youth Authority. Frankie was one of two gang members who were prosecuted for various sex crimes in the assault of a juvenile female. Frankie was committed to a youth center for 16 months, and various probation conditions were orally imposed. After Frankie's release, the probation officer had him sign a form which contained the probation terms. He was subsequently committed to the California Youth Authority for violating his probation. In the case of Thrash who was placed on probation following a plea of guilty to charges of receiving stolen property, the court conceded that probation officers have wide discretion in enforcing court-ordered conditions of probation and that directives or orders to the probationer do not require prior court approval as long as they are reasonably related to the terms imposed by the court. The court distinguished Pedro's case from Frankie's case in that the additional terms imposed on Pedro were not standard terms included on a preprinted form supplied by the court. Since the terms were not devised by the court and the court was never informed of the terms, they could not be deemed to have been considered and imposed by the court. The author concludes that the Pedro decision is a mandate that any modifications to probation terms be duly submitted for judicial review and consideration, in light of the individual minor's circumstances, to ensure appropriate application. 19 footnotes