People v. Drummond CA4/1

Filed 9/10/24 P. v. Drummond CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083408

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD300616)

ROBERT L. DRUMMOND,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed. William P. Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I INTRODUCTION Defendant Robert L. Drummond pleaded guilty to one count of abusing a cohabitant. Thereafter, the probation department filed a report recommending that the trial court place Drummond on formal probation for three years subject to several conditions, including a condition (hereafter, Condition 6(o)) requiring him to “[s]eek and maintain full-time employment … if directed by the [probation officer].” During sentencing, the court orally imposed a three-year term of formal probation and adopted “[e]verything” in the probation department’s recommendation. It also issued a written court order granting probation and imposing Condition 6(o) as set forth in the probation department’s recommendation. However, during sentencing, the court—using slightly different language—at times opined that Drummond needed to “get a job” as a condition of probation. Drummond appeals the judgment and contends the trial court imposed an unreasonable and invalid probation condition insofar as it ordered him to “get a job.” The People claim the court did not impose a condition requiring him to get a job (hereafter, a “Get a Job” condition); rather, it imposed Condition 6(o) as it was phrased in the probation department’s recommendation and the written court order granting probation. However, to the extent there is an inconsistency between the oral pronouncement and the written court order, the People do not oppose a modification of the probation condition to match Condition 6(o). The court’s statements that Drummond must “get a job” give rise to at least a partial discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of the probation condition and the probation condition set forth in the written court order. The traditional rule is that a court’s oral pronouncement of a probation