(Super. Ct. No. JV117541)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson, Acting P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A notice of hearing filed November 26, 2008, alleged that the 16-year-old minor, B.R., who had previously been declared a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, violated probation. The notice alleged the minor had violated the condition that he "[o]bey all laws and reasonable directives of group home staff, school officials and the Probation Officer" by: (1) threatening to assault group home staff on November 20, 2008; (2) threatening to assault a group home resident on November 20, 2008; (3) physically assaulting a group home resident on November 19, 2008; (4) physically assaulting a group home resident on November 18, 2008; (5) physically assaulting a group home resident on November 16, 2008; and (6) damaging group home property and directing sexual comments to staff on November 15, 2008.
The following facts, inter alia, were adduced at the March 10, 2009, contested hearing: When the minor arrived at the Charis Youth Center, he received a handbook that listed its rules and regulations. Thereafter, the minor took and passed a test demonstrating his knowledge and understanding of the rules and regulations. The rules of the facility included an absolute ban on any kind of touching, even consensual or friendly touching, of any other minor in the facility. Another rule required respect for staff and that directives be respectfully followed. Two staff members, social worker/therapist Alisa Ziegler and facility manager Joshua White, reviewed these particular requirements with the minor and the minor indicated he understood them.
On November 16, 2008, White observed the minor put one of the other youths in a headlock and lift him off his feet. As White approached, the minor set the other youth down.
On November 18, 2008, while working in a dual capacity of therapist and on call support faculty, Ziegler received a report that the minor had assaulted another youth in a bedroom while another youth held the door closed to keep staff out of the room. When Ziegler and another house manager responded to the area, the incident was over. Ziegler spoke separately with all three individuals involved. Each stated that minor B.R. had beaten the victim youth while a third youth held the door closed.
The trial court found the minor had violated his probation, finding true the fourth and fifth allegations in the notice, that the minor physically assaulted a group home resident on November 18, 2008, and physically assaulted a group home resident on November 16, 2008, respectively. The court continued wardship and ordered the minor to report to probation for suitable placement.
On appeal, the minor contends the evidence adduced in support of the fourth allegation of assault on November 18, 2008, consisted entirely of inadmissible hearsay. He contends that, without the inadmissible hearsay evidence, insufficient evidence supports the finding that he violated his probation by committing the November 18, 2008, assault. Accordingly, he asks this court to "direct the trial court to strike from its record all references to the fact that [he] violated count four."
However, even if there was insufficient admissible evidence to find he committed the assault on November 18, 2008, sufficient evidence remains that he violated probation with respect to the assault on November 16, 2008, set forth in the fifth allegation of the notice. The minor does not contend otherwise. Nor does he allege any prejudice arising from the finding on the fourth allegation. Instead, he merely asks this court to order the record sanitized.
The minor must show prejudice in order to obtain relief on appeal. (People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1161 [judgment affirmed since error in admitting hearsay at probation revocation hearing was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt]; Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.) He has failed to do so, and none appears from the record. There is no reason to believe the trial court's disposition would have differed if based solely on the fifth allegation. Furthermore, probation violations do not trigger other collateral ...