P. v. Merrick
Filed 3/5/08 P. v. Merrick CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUSSEL PATRICK MERRICK, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B196781 (Super. Ct. No. 2003039305) (Ventura County) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING. [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 4, 2008, be modified as follows:
1. On page 3, after the fourth full paragraph, add the following text:
Merrick argues that the terms of probation, attendance at programs, was ordered by the court, not the probation department. He claims that the probation department merely monitored Merrick's compliance with the court's probation order. Therefore he could not be in violation of a directive of the probation department. This is an unreasonably narrow view of the authority of the probation department. The probation officer is more than a clerk who notes a probationer's activities. The probation officer directs the probationer to comply with the court's order. Thus, any treatment program ordered by the court is necessarily designated and monitored by the probation department.
Merrick also argues on petition for rehearing that our assertion that drug use, alcohol abuse and domestic violence are sufficiently related is not supported by the evidence. But it is well supported by experience and common sense.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
