People v. Thrash
| Decision Date | 12 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 8694 |
| Citation | 80 Cal.App.3d 898,146 Cal.Rptr. 32 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John THRASH, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Tom Adler, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel J. Kremer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan S. Meth and Rudolf Corona, Jr., Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
John Thrash appeals an order revoking his probation which was granted following his plea of guilty to one count of receiving stolen property (Pen.Code § 496(1)). After the plea, the court dismissed two counts of receiving stolen property and three counts of burglary (Pen.Code § 459). The court granted a certificate of probable cause (Pen.Code § 1237.5), following reinstatement of probation.
Contrary to a written condition of his probation, Thrash left California. He contends the court could not revoke his probation for this violation because he was never orally advised of this condition.
The probation officer's report, filed September 29, 1975, did not contain any recommendations as to travel restrictions. When it placed Thrash on probation, the court said it suspended imposition of sentence on condition he serve one year in custody and "on other conditions set forth in the probation report."
Thrash received a copy of an amended probation order. The preprinted portion of that order recites the travel restrictions. The amended order was signed October 6, 1975 nunc pro tunc September 29, 1975.
Thrash was not present at the time the travel restrictions were set and says he did not have a chance to object to that condition of probation. This he says leads to an anomalous result since he was required to be in court for sentencing (Pen.Code § 977(b)) but had no opportunity to contest the terms of probation or to reject probation if the terms were too onerous (In re Osslo, 51 Cal.2d 371, 374, 334 P.2d 1). However, a grant of probation is not part of the judgment that creates vested rights; the court has the authority to revoke, modify or change its order. Thrash does not claim he did not know what the probation conditions were; he could have petitioned the court if he had wanted to challenge or reject the terms of his probation (People v. Labarbera, 89 Cal.App.2d 639, 643, 201 P.2d 584).
Thrash argues that if the court says he should have petitioned to challenge the conditions it merely begs the issue. He says the conditions of probation, especially the preprinted ones, are lost in the form; he points out that the requirements of clarity and type size for automobile and installment sales contracts are more stringent than what is used on the probation order (see Civ.Code § 2983.2(a)(8); § 1803.2(b). Compounding this problem, Thrash says, is the fact that conditions of probation, if they are not mentioned in open court, will never be discussed because the attorney-client relationship has, for all practical purposes, ended. However, the probation officer-client relationship has begun and the comment to section 3.1(a) of the American Bar Association Project on Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Probation, which Thrash cites, says the conditions of probation should be orally stated to the defendant either by the court or by the probation officer. Thrash's underlying complaint, that a defendant should know the conditions of his grant of probation, is valid. However, here Thrash does not allege he did not know the conditions; although he fails to tell us how he found out about the conditions of his probation, he merely complains it should have been in another way, that is, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. P.O. (In re P.O.)
...conditions it orally listed. (See In re Frankie J.(1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1152–1155, 244 Cal.Rptr. 254 ; People v. Thrash(1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 898, 900–902, 146 Cal.Rptr. 32.)5 Although P.O. did not object to the good-behavior conditions below, no objection was necessary to preserve his ......
-
People v. Kevin F. (In re Kevin F.)
...1341, 1346, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 335 [whether oral or written conditions prevail depends on circumstances of case]; People v. Thrash (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, 146 Cal.Rptr. 32 [probation conditions "need not be spelled out in great detail in court as long as the defendant knows what they ar......
-
People v. Pirali
...Cal.Rptr. 862, 659 P.2d 1152; People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 226, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 224, 106 P.3d 895.) 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......
-
State v. Ketchum
...for traveling outside state without consent of court, which was required, when officer consented); but see, People v. Thrash, 80 Cal.App.3d 898, 146 Cal.Rptr. 32 (1978) (probation revoked for traveling outside the state without permission); People v. Willett, 44 Ill.App.3d 545, 3 Ill.Dec. 2......