Opinion
A115511
4-30-2007
In re JORGE B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JORGE B., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appellant Jorge B. appeals from a September 12, 2006, order committing him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice (JJ). He asserts, and the Attorney General concedes, that the order must be modified by striking certain probationary conditions imposed after the court committed appellant to JJ. We agree and modify the order accordingly. In all other respects, we affirm.
On November 15, 2005, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that the then 17-year old appellant had committed two lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 years. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) On March 31, 2006, as part of a plea agreement, appellant admitted that he committed one lewd act and the court dismissed the allegation that appellant had committed a second lewd act. The juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and committed him to JJ for a maximum period of 8 years less credit for time served of 246 days. The court imposed statutory requirements of both victim restitution and a restitution fine, and directed appellant to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290.
Appellant does not challenge the courts imposition of these statutorily required provisions. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 730.6, subds. (a)(2)(A), (b)(1), (p); 730.8, subd. (b); Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (d)(1), (3).)
After committing appellant to JJ, the court also imposed the following discretionary conditions proposed by the probation department (hereinafter probationary conditions): no contact and stay at least 100 yards from victim and her family, remain out of Contra Costa County, no contact with minors under the age of 14 unless authorized by the probation officer, consent and cooperate with sex offender assessment instruments when deemed necessary by treatment providers and/or probation/parole officer, no possession of any pornography, including but not limited to pictures, videotapes, computer or telecommunication access to such applications, not be involved in any organization or employment that would place him in direct contact with minors, not frequent or visit places that exist primarily for the enjoyment of minors (circuses, playgrounds, arcades, amusement parks, zoos), and not to be on any school campus unless enrolled. The court recognized that it did not need to set forth the described probationary conditions because appellant would be under the jurisdiction of the JJ. Nevertheless, it imposed the conditions, at the request of the probation officer and without objection by appellants counsel.
The court also included as a condition, that appellant "consent to sharing of privilege assessment treatment information between public and private agencies." This provision was requested by a JJ staff member and is not specifically challenged on appeal.
We conclude that the juvenile court erred in imposing the described probationary conditions after committing appellant to JJ. "In general, once a child is committed to [JJ], supervision of the childs rehabilitation is a function solely for [JJ], not the juvenile court." (In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1399, fn. 8.) Consequently, imposition of probationary conditions that seek to govern a childs rehabilitation are not permissible. (See In re Allen N. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 513, 516.) Although there was no objection at sentencing, we agree with the parties that the challenged probationary conditions should be stricken. (See In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887 ["An obvious legal error at sentencing that is `correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings is not subject to forfeiture."].) In all other respects, the September 12, 2006, order is affirmed.
DISPOSITION
The discretionary probationary conditions imposed by the court in its September 12, 2006, order and described in the text of the third paragraph of this opinion are stricken. In all other respects, the September 12, 2006, order is affirmed. The juvenile court shall amend its records accordingly and forward copies of the pertinent records to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice.
We concur:
Pollak, J.
Siggins, J.