In re Pedro Q.

Pedro Q. (defendant) was a juvenile who committed assault with a deadly weapon. As a result, a court placed Pedro on probation in March 1986 with various probation conditions. The conditions included: (1) commitment to a youth camp for nine months; (2) a prohibition on associating with the gang to which he belonged; (3) attending therapy and counseling; (4) submitting to being searched and having belongings seized; and (5) a prohibition on the use of dangerous weapons, alcohol, or drugs. After nine months, Pedro was released from the youth camp and returned to his parents’ custody. In May 1987, Pedro’s probation officer added additional probation conditions and did not inform the court. The probation officer added a curfew and a condition that Pedro could not go into the area that comprised his gang’s territory. In June 1987, another petition was filed against Pedro, asserting that he had used PCP. Pedro admitted using the drug. Before a dispositional hearing took place, another petition was filed, alleging that Pedro had violated the conditions of his probation by missing curfew and by going into his gang’s territory. A combined hearing was held on the new petition and the disposition for the drug charge. The petition asserting probation violations was sustained by the court, and Pedro was committed to the California Youth Authority for a maximum period of 10 years with an additional eight months as a weapons enhancement. Pedro appealed, arguing that the probation condition prohibiting his travel in the area where his gang operated would not sustain a probation violation because it was imposed by his probation officer alone and was unconstitutional. Pedro contended that only the court could modify his probation by adding new conditions.