Filed 8 / 3 /16 In re V.C. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re V. C., A Person Coming Under the
Juvenil e Court Law. B2 65296

(Los Angeles County THE PEOPLE,

P laintiff and Respondent,

v.

V

. C

.,

Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. TJ21864 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Catherine J. Pratt

, Juvenile Court Referee . Affirmed with directions

. Mary Bernstein , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorne y General, Paul M . Roadarmel, Jr.

and David A. Voet , Deputy Attorneys General, for P laintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________________2 INTRODUCTION

The juvenile court declared V.C. a ward of the court after it found he committed

second

- deg ree robbery when he forcibly took money from his seventh

- grade classmate

.
In pronouncing V.C.’s conditions of probation, the court ordered V.C. not to discuss any

facts of the robbery with the victim, but allowed V.C. to otherwise communicate with

the victim. However, the conditions of probation set forth in the court’s minute order

from the disposition hearing prohibit V.C. from communicating at all with the victim

. On appeal, V.C. contends the court’s dispositional minute order should be

amended to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of his probation conditions

. We

agree

.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In December 2014

, V.C. was detained in connection with a robbery at his middle

school. V.C. and his group of friends approached the victim and demanded that he give

them his money. When the v ictim refused, V.C. grabbed him by the shoulders an d

pushed him against the wall. One of V.C.’s friends then reached into the victim’s back

pocket and re m oved the money

. After V.C. was detained, t he District Attorney’s Office filed a Welfare and

Institutions Code section 602 petition , alleging V.C. committed second

- degree robbery

(Pen. Code, § 211)

. In July 2015, the juvenile court sustained the burglary allegation

and declared V.C. a ward of the court. The court then placed V.C. at home on

probation. In pronouncing V.C.’s terms of probation , the court instructed V.C. “You ’re

not to

. . . have any contact with [ the victim ]

. ” However, after V.C.’s counsel informed

the court that V.C. and the victim still go to the same school and are now friends, the

court changed V.C.’s probation condition relating to contact with the victim, stating:

“With [the v ictim] , I don’t want you to talk to him about what happened as f ar as on this

particular day.” T he clerk’s minute order from the disposition hearing does not

, however, accurately reflect the court’s final oral pronouncement of V.C.’s probation

conditions

. Probation Condition 15 in the minute order states: “You must not have any

contact with or have some one else contact the victim [] or witness es of any offense3

against you.” Probation Condition 15A further states: “Specifically no contact with

[ the victi m ] .” This appeal follow ed

.
DISCUSSION

V.C. contends , and the People concede, Probation Conditions 15 and 15A as

reflected in the disposition al minute order should be amended to reflect the court’s oral

pronouncement of those conditions . We agree.

The court’s oral pronounce ment constitutes the judgment. ( People v. Mesa

(1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 .) T he entering of the judgment in the minutes is a clerical

function. ( Ibid

. ) When the reporter’s transcript and the clerk’s minute order are in

conflict, “[ they] will be harmonized if possible; but where this is not possible that part

of the record will prevail, which, because of its origin and nature or otherwise, is

entitled to greater credence.” ( People v. Smith (1983) 33 C al.3d 596, 599.) Generally,

when there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the

minute order, the oral pronouncement controls. ( People v. Morales (2014)

224 Cal.App.4th 1587, 1594, citing People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

(the clerk’s minut es must accurately reflect what occurred at the hearing].)

Here, the conditions set forth in the minute order conflict with the conditions

orally pronounced by the court. When it pronounced V.C.’s final conditions of

probation, the court ordered V.C. to refrain from speaking to the victim about the

robbery only; it did not prohibit V.C. from otherwise contacting the victim. However,

Probation Conditions 15 and 15A set forth in the minute order from the disposition

hearing prohibit V.C. from having any c o ntact with the victim. Thus, the court must

amend its dispositional minute order to reflect its oral pronouncement of V.C.’s

probation conditions

.4 DISPOSITION

The juvenile court is directed to amend Probation Conditions 15 and 15A in its

July 1, 2015 minute order to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of those conditions

. In all other respe cts, the judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

ALDRICH, Acting P. J.

HOGUE, J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.