Opinion
B199745
6-24-2008
In re STEPHEN H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN H., Defendant and Appellant.
Torres & Torres and Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published
Stephen H., a minor, appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 by reason of his having committed an assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). The juvenile court declared the offense to be a felony and ordered appellant suitably placed, with a maximum term of commitment of four years.
In its oral pronouncement of the order of wardship, the juvenile court imposed, among other conditions, condition No. 15 that appellant "not associate with anybody that you know is disapproved of by your parents, guardians, or probation officer" (italics added) and condition No. 21 providing that appellant "stay away from places where you know [narcotics] users congregate" (italics added). It did not impose probation condition No. 16 which states that appellant "not have any dangerous or deadly weapon in your possession, nor remain in the presence of any unlawfully armed person." The minute order of the adjudication/disposition hearing does not include the knowledge element in probation condition Nos. term 15 and 21 and includes probation condition No. 16. Appellant contends that the minute order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement.
We affirm the order of wardship with directions.
FACTS
On March 15, 2007, appellant and his four-year-old brother, Jonathan M., were playing in the front yard of their house. Appellant put ants in a bottle, sprayed them with "body spray," and lit them on fire with a lighter. Appellant also sprayed Jonathan and his toys with the body spray, and Jonathan took the spray and sprayed appellant in the face. Angry, appellant grabbed Jonathans right hand and lit the lighter under it, burning Jonathans hand and fingers, leaving scars that were visible at the adjudication hearing.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends that the preprinted, check-off, form minute order of the adjudication/disposition hearing must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of the juvenile courts wardship order in two respects: (1) condition Nos. 15 and 21 must be amended to include the knowledge requirement which was included in the oral pronouncement of the order and is necessary to comply with constitutional requirements, and (2) condition No. 16, that appellant "not have any dangerous or deadly weapon in your possession, nor remain in the presence of any unlawfully armed person," must be stricken from the minute order because it was not contained in the oral pronouncement. Respondent agrees with appellant, as do we.
Here, the juvenile courts oral pronouncement of the wardship order contained the constitutionally required knowledge requirement in condition Nos. 15 and 21. But the preprinted, form minute order of the adjudication/disposition hearing fails to include that requirement. Further, the oral pronouncement of the wardship order did not include probation condition No. 16, while the box was checked on the minute order indicating that that condition was imposed.
Rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.) Entry of judgment in the minutes is a clerical function. (Ibid.; Pen. Code, § 1207.) An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and cannot add to or modify the judgment it purports to summarize. (People v. Mesa, supra, at p. 471.) The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over the abstract of judgment. (People v. Crenshaw (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1416.) If a minute order or abstract of judgment fails to reflect the judgment pronounced by the trial court, the error is clerical and the record can be corrected at any time to reflect the true facts. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185; People v. Mesa, supra, at p. 471; see also People v. Williams (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 827, 830, fn. 3; People v. Jack (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 913, 915-916.) Consequently, the minute order here must be corrected to reflect the juvenile courts oral pronouncement of the wardship order.
DISPOSITION
The wardship order is affirmed. This matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to correct the adjudication/disposition hearing minute order to provide in condition No. 15 that appellant "not associate with anyone that you know is disapproved of by your parents, guardians or probation officer," in condition No. 21 that appellant "stay away from places where you know [narcotics] users congregate," and to strike condition No. 16.
We concur:
BOREN, P. J.
CHAVEZ, J. --------------- Notes: All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. 2. In In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, our Supreme Court held that a probation condition that a minor not associate with anyone disapproved of by probation is unconstitutionally vague unless it requires the minor to know of whom probation disapproves. (Id. at p. 891.) Similarly, it is unconstitutionally vague to require a minor to "stay away from places where [narcotics] users congregate," if the minor is unaware of where those locations are.