Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J0700094
Margulies, J.
Defendant K.S., a minor, admitted commission of a robbery and was committed to a term with the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Although no probation conditions were discussed at defendant’s dispositional hearing, the minute order for the proceeding contained both the imposition of specific probation conditions by the juvenile court and a conflicting notation recognizing DJJ’s authority to impose any such conditions. Defendant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that the imposition of the probation conditions was an improper attempt to regulate or supervise the defendant’s rehabilitation after he was committed to the DJJ. On the basis of the hearing transcript and minute order, we conclude that the court did not intend to impose impermissible conditions of probation, but we remand to the trial court with directions to correct the minute order to show no conditions of probation.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant, a minor, was the subject of a juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), filed January 9, 2007. The petition alleged that he had committed the following offenses: (1) robbery, with an enhancement for personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022.53, subd. (b)); (2) carrying a concealable firearm (§ 12101, subd. (a)(1)); (3) unlawful possession of live ammunition (§ 12101, subd. (b)(1)); (4) carrying a concealed weapon (§ 12025, subd. (a)(2)); (5) carrying a loaded firearm (§ 12031, (a)(1)); and (6) carrying a sawed-off weapon (§ 12020, subd. (a)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant admitted the first allegation, and the remaining allegations were dismissed. Defendant was adjudged a ward of the court and committed to the DJJ for a maximum period of five years.
The transcript of the dispositional hearing shows that the juvenile court, when announcing its disposition, explained in detail its reasons for selecting DJJ commission and then discussed further scheduling with counsel. There was no mention of conditions of probation. Yet in a printed minute order issued subsequently, the boxes imposing three standard probation conditions had been checked, requiring defendant not to possess weapons, to submit to drug and alcohol testing, and pay restitution. An inconsistent handwritten entry at the bottom of the page says, “Prob. conditions to be set by DJJ.”
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that the imposition of probation conditions was improper. The Attorney General agrees, as do we, that if the judgment is construed to impose conditions of probation by the juvenile court, it would be in error. Although the juvenile court retained jurisdiction over defendant after he was committed to DJJ, it lost any authority over his direct supervision. (In re Ronny P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1208; In re Allen N. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 513, 515.) Rather, for the duration of defendant’s DJJ commitment, including both confinement and any parole, DJJ had statutory responsibility for his supervision. (In re Antoine D. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1325.) Accordingly, the juvenile court was without power to impose conditions on defendant’s conduct once it committed him to DJJ, without first vacating that commitment. (Ibid.; In re Allen N., at p. 516.)
When portions of the appellate record are in conflict, we must harmonize them, if possible, in construing the record. (People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 226.) We conclude, based on the court’s failure to address conditions of probation at the hearing and the handwritten notation on the minute order, that the juvenile court was aware of the limitations on its authority and did not intend to impose probation conditions. Nonetheless, the presence of the checked probation conditions creates the possibility for confusion and error in the administration of defendant’s commitment. We therefore remand for correction of the record.
III. DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of a corrected minute order showing no conditions of probation.
We concur: Stein, Acting P.J., Swager, J.