In re I.P

Filed 5/8/06 In re I.P. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

APPEAL from an order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Ronnie Duberstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________

I.P.appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court for possession of a controlled substance and misdemeanor battery. He contends that three of his conditions of probation should be modified to conform to the juvenile court's oral pronouncement of sentence. We modify the probation conditions and, as modified, affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After I.P.was arrested for hitting another minor, police discovered cocaine base in his jacket pocket. The district attorney filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging I.P.had possessed a controlled substance and committed battery (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 242). The juvenile court sustained the allegations, declared I.P.a ward of the court, and ordered him home on probation, subject to certain terms and conditions.

DISCUSSION

In placing I.P.home on probation, the juvenile court imposed a number of specific conditions of probation, including: â€