From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re David S.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Jul 21, 2008
No. B197631 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. JJ14602, Donna Groman, Judge.

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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon and A. Scott Hayward, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


JACKSON, J.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant David S. appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 entered after the juvenile court found true the allegation that he committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). Appellant complains of the trial court’s failure to include in its minute order the knowledge requirement it imposed as to one of his probation conditions. We agree and direct the trial court to correct the order.

FACTS

On the afternoon of December 12, 2006, appellant pushed Carlos Hernandez to the ground and took a bicycle from him. In his defense, appellant testified that the bicycle had been stolen from him a month earlier.

DISCUSSION

The juvenile court ordered that appellant be suitably placed and imposed probation conditions to apply on his return home. Condition No. 21 was that appellant not use or possess controlled substances and that he “stay away from places where you know that users congregate.” (Italics added.) Condition No. 21 on the form minute order, however, directs appellant to “stay away from places where users congregate.”

The People acknowledge the “knowledge requirement is necessary to render the condition[s] constitutional.” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 892; In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 816.) They argue, however, that correction of the minute order is unnecessary, in that, in the case of a discrepancy between the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order, the oral pronouncement of judgment controls. (People Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385.)

While the oral pronouncement of judgment is controlling, an accurate minute order is necessary “‘to furnish a concise record’” of what occurred at the hearing if necessary for future reference. (People v. Zackery, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 386.) The minute order thus must be corrected to reflect the knowledge requirement imposed by the trial court as to probation condition No. 21. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471; People v. Crenshaw (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1415-1416.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. The juvenile court is directed to correct its minute order as to probation condition No. 21 to provide that appellant stay away from places where he knows users congregate.

We concur: WOODS, Acting P. J., ZELON, J.


Summaries of

In re David S.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Jul 21, 2008
No. B197631 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2008)
Case details for

In re David S.

Case Details

Full title:In re DAVID S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

Date published: Jul 21, 2008

Citations

No. B197631 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2008)