Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. DL027636, Claudia Silbar, Judge.
Cathy A. Neff, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Koch and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
IKOLA, J.
John H. (the minor), a ward of the court, contends the court imposed a vague and overbroad probation condition by requiring him to maintain a residence approved by his probation officer. But the court imposed no such condition in its oral pronouncement of judgment. We modify a contrary minute order, and affirm.
FACTS
In April 2007, the minor and three friends approached some people on a hiking trail. One of the friends told the hikers, “You are getting jacked. We’re taking everything that you have right now.” The hikers gave him cash, a watch, and a jacket. The minor and his friends walked down the hiking trial, got into a car, and drove off. Orange County Sheriff’s Department deputies later pulled over their vehicle. Defendant had marijuana in his possession.
The District Attorney filed a petition to declare the minor a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) It charged him with two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), and one count of possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)). It also filed a second petition to declare the minor a ward of the court, charging him with one count of resisting an officer, arising out of a separate incident. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).)
The court found the first petition’s allegations to be true. The minor admitted the second petition’s allegations. The court adjudged the minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation, with the condition he serve 150 days in custody, with credit for 60 days previously served. The minute order reflects the court imposed an additional probation condition that the minor “MAINTAIN A RESIDENCE APPROVED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER AND NOTIFY PROBATION OFFICER OF ANY CHANGE WITHIN 48 HOURS.” The disposition agreement does not contain this language. It states the minor must “[n]otify the probation officer of current address and telephone number; report any changes within 48 hours.” The court similarly directed the minor from the bench: “Notify your probation officer of your current address and telephone number at all times. And if you change either one of those, you have 48 hours to let your probation officer know.”
DISCUSSION
The minor claims the court wrongly imposed a probation condition requiring him to maintain a residence approved by his probation officer. He contends this probation condition is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks a knowledge requirement — the minor might violate the condition by living in a residence he does not know is unapproved. (Cf. In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 891-892 [modifying probation condition that barred minor from associating with disapproved persons to contain a knowledge requirement].) He further contends it is unconstitutionally overbroad because it would allow the probation officer to bar him from objectively reasonable residences.
The parties fail to recognize the court never imposed the challenged probation condition. When it pronounced judgment, the court merely directed the minor to provide his current address and telephone number to the probation officer and report any changes within 48 hours. “The record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order.” (People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2.) “Entering the judgment in the minutes being a clerical function [citation], a discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error.” (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.) “Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts . . . that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
The minor concedes he does not necessarily seek a reversal. He states in his briefing, “the [probation] condition can be easily salvaged. . . . [T]he court could simply require the condition to be rewritten to require that the probationer not reside in residences known to be disapproved of by his probation officer (and/or parent[s]).” Because the court did not impose the probation condition that the minor challenges, we may satisfy his underlying concern by modifying the minute order to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment.
DISPOSITION
The June 19, 2007 minute order is modified by striking the challenged language and inserting the probation condition that the minor must notify the probation officer of his current address and telephone number and report any changes within 48 hours. With this modification, the judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: MOORE, ACTING P. J., FYBEL, J.