People v. Sanchez CA4/3

Filed 1/29/14 P. v. Sanchez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048344

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11CF3118)

MIGUEL CUEVAS SANCHEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David A. Hoffer, Judge. Affirmed. Jesse W.J. Male and David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Warren Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury convicted defendant Miguel Cuevas Sanchez of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years formal probation. Defendant appeals, in part, because after the court stated the conditions of probation in open court, the minute order added several additional provisions. Relying on cases dealing with pronouncement of sentences, he argues the additions should be struck. But “though the older rule is to give preference to the reporter’s transcript where there is a conflict, the modern rule is that if the clerk’s and reporter’s transcript cannot be reconciled, the part of the record that will prevail is the one that should be given greater credence in the circumstances of the case. [Citations.] (In People v. Thrash (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 898 [146 Cal.Rptr. 32], the appellate court held that probation conditions ‘need not be spelled out in great detail in court as long as the defendant knows what they are; to require recital in court is unnecessary in view of the fact the probation conditions are spelled out in detail on the probation order . . . .’ [Citation.]” (People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1346.) Here defendant had access to the minute order and thus notice of the conditions was sufficient. If he contends the minute order does not reflect the intentions of the trial court, he could have sought correction in that court and failed to do so. Defendant was placed on probation under Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, §§ 1210, 1210.1) and the conditions imposed are within the spirit of that proposition. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (a).) In addition, defendant complains that several of the conditions of his probation are vague or overbroad. We will review each of these. One of the conditions required defendant to “maintain a residence as approved by probation.” He claims that this “impinges on constitutional entitlements – the right to travel and freedom of association” and complains that the court should have provided probation with criteria “upon which approval is to be based.” In support of his