Error and/or relief
It is improper for a trial court to delegate to a probation officer whether to require a probationer to undergo residential substance abuse treatment.
First Holding:
In resolving whether a clerk’s transcript or the reporter’s transcript controls in the event of a conflict, we do not apply a mechanical rule in favor of the reporter’s transcript but instead consider the circumstances of each particular case to determine which portion of the record because of its origin and nature or otherwise, is entitled to greater credence. F
or reasons we explain below, in this case, we conclude that the clerk’s transcript best reflects the trial court’s intention to delegate to a probation officer whether to require the defendant to attend residential treatment. In this case the clerk’s minutes note that some of the probation conditions are set out in the probation order. Provision number nine of that order provides, “Complete a program of residential treatment and aftercare if directed by the probation officer.” The reporter’s transcript, however, with respect to this condition, states only, “Plead [sic] to any kind of treatment or aftercare if directed by probation.” We must determine which of the two versions reflects the court’s true intention.
Authority:
People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599
Second Holding:
As a general rule, courts will attempt to harmonize the record if a conflict exists. Historically, when a conflict between the court’s oral pronouncement and the written record could not be resolved, the oral pronouncement was given preference However, the modern rule is that if the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts 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.
Authority:
People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599
People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, 880
People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1346
Third Holding:
With respect to the type of record at issue here, when evaluating a court’s oral pronouncement of probation conditions, a thorough explanation of the conditions is not necessary if the defendant knows what the proposed conditions are. Therefore, the oral pronouncement may be less detailed than the probation order. In this instance, it is clear that the court summarized the conditions of the probation as outlined in the probation order proposed by the probation officer. We conclude that the court intended to adopt the language proposed, to the extent that it did not modify the language (as it did with some proposed conditions. We therefore conclude that the minute order and the probation order are to be given “greater credence” than the oral pronouncement in determining the applicable probation condition under review.
Authority:
People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1346 [recital of probation conditions in court is unnecessary because conditions are spelled out in detail in the probation order]
People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599
Fourth Holding:
The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by the Constitution. Trial courts have the authority to determine if a defendant is eligible for probation and if so, which conditions would be appropriate under the circumstances. By ordering probation, a court may impose reasonable conditions that deprive the offender of some freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens.
Accordingly, a court may require a defendant to complete a residential treatment program, even though it would place a significant burden on a defendant’s liberty interests. A probation officer, on the other hand, has discretion to oversee and enforce the trial court’s orders. The probation officer may not create conditions not expressly authorized by the court.
Authority:
Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3
PEN 1203
People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379
People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1350
People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 903
People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358
Fifth Holding:
It is an unconstitutional delegation to the probation officer to decide whether the defendant needed to complete residential treatment, as opposed to an outpatient program. Unlike outpatients, participants in residential programs may be confined to the treatment facility for the duration of the program, separated from family and friends, and unable to maintain a job. Given the significant liberty interests at stake, a court—not a probation officer—must make the decision to require a defendant to attend residential treatment.
Authority:
People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 905