In re R.M. CA2/4

Filed 2/25/21 In re R.M. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re R.M., a Person Coming Under B302100 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NJ29522)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John C. Lawson, II, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Roberta L. Davis and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

R.M. appeals after the juvenile court sustained a delinquency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602)1 against him for felony evading a peace officer while driving in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and driving or taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent (id., § 10851, subd. (a)). The court declared R.M. a ward of the court, ordered camp- community placement for five to seven months with a maximum confinement of four years, and modified conditions of probation it had previously imposed. On appeal, R.M. contends that two conditions of probation that appear in the adjudication minute order (condition Nos. 12 and 13A) must be stricken because they were not imposed in the court’s initial order granting R.M. probation, and were not orally pronounced as part of the judgment. Because we cannot determine from the record whether the juvenile court intended to impose these additional conditions of probation, we remand the matter to the court for clarification. Otherwise, we affirm.