In re V.C. CA2/3

Filed 8/3/16 In re V.C. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 B265296 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County THE PEOPLE, Super. Ct. No. TJ21864)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

V. C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

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 Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________________

INTRODUCTION The juvenile court declared V.C. a ward of the court after it found he committed second-degree 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 victim refused, V.C. grabbed him by the shoulders and pushed him against the wall. One of V.C.’s friends then reached into the victim’s back pocket and removed the money. After V.C. was detained, the 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 victim], I don’t want you to talk to him about what happened as far as on this particular day.” The 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 someone else contact the victim[] or witnesses of any offense