In re Hector P.
Filed 8/21/08 In re Hector P. CA 2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re HECTOR P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B202670 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NJ22601) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HECTOR P., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John C. Lawson II, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 6.) Affirmed with directions.
Bruce G. Finebaum, 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, Susan D. Martynec and Linda C. Johnson, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Hector P. was declared a ward of the court following a contested adjudication in which he was found to have assaulted an administrator at a high school in Long Beach on May 10, 2007. The minor was placed home on probation, and it was further ordered that he not be held in physical confinement for a period to exceed six months.
The minor contends, and the Attorney General aptly concedes, that because the minor was placed home on probation, the juvenile court erred in setting a maximum period of confinement. When a juvenile ward is allowed to remain in his parents custody, there is no physical confinement and therefore no need to set a maximum term of confinement. Consequently, the maximum term of confinement . . . is of no legal effect. (In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, 571.) We shall order that the portion of the dispositional order relating to physical confinement be stricken.
The minor further notes that when the court orally pronounced the conditions of probation at the disposition hearing, no reference was made to two conditions of probation that were set forth in the minute order of that days session: conditions Nos. 22 (do not associate with known narcotics users or sellers) and 26 (cooperate in a plan for psychological testing treatment). The minor argues that these two conditions should be stricken based on the rule that the reporters transcript (oral pronouncement) prevails when in conflict with the clerks transcript (minute order). But the rule is only a general one, which must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. [Citations.] (People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599.) Here, the probation officers report included in the Desired Outcomes Summary that the minor lead a Substance-Free Lifestyle, and the Measurable Objectives Summary and Service Delivery Plan Summary both included Psychological Counseling. It is thus apparent that of the 24 conditions of probation that were checked on the Minute Order Conditions of Probation, the courts failure to orally recite Nos. 22 and 26 was inadvertent and does not constitute a circumstance that calls for these conditions to be stricken.
DISPOSITION
The order under review is affirmed. The juvenile court is ordered to strike that portion of the commitment order stating that the minor may not be held in physical confinement for a period to exceed six months.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MALLANO, P. J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, J.
WEISBERG, J.*
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Retired Judge of the Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
