Opinion
Page 187d
197 Cal.App.4th 187d __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAVID PATEL, Defendant and Appellant. C066321 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento July 19, 2011Super. Ct. No. 10F03119.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING
THE COURT:
IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on June 21, 2011 (196 Cal.App.4th 956;___Cal.Rptr.3d___), be modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
On page 7 [196 Cal.App.4th 960, advance report, 2d par., line 23], at the end of the sentence reading “It will no longer be necessary to seek a modification of a probation order that fails to expressly include such a scienter requirement, ” add as footnote 4 the following footnote:
Our decision does not prevent appellate counsel from seeking to make explicit what we have now deemed included by operation of law through an application to the trial court to make any requested clerical modifications of the probation order, over which the trial court maintains jurisdiction to make any changes in conditions. (Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (j).) This procedure is analogous to that established in People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 314] for resolution of issues involving conduct credits, later given legislative endorsement (Pen. Code, § 1237.1), which concluded that it is proper to require an initial resort to the trial court before permitting an appeal if an effective remedy is available there. (Fares, at p. 959.)
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.