legal newsarticles
jobs
projectsbriefs
 
Home Link Directory Forum Gallery Cases Law BlogsOpportunities
 
In re J.R.
In re J.R.
10/25/06

In re J.R.



Filed 9/28/06 In re J.R. CA1/4





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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



FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION FOUR














In re J. R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.




THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


J. R.,


Defendant and Appellant.



A112713


(Contra Costa County


Super. Ct. No. J04-00701)



J. R. appeals from a dispositional order of probation on conditions including a suspended nine-month ranch commitment, electronic monitoring, and four weekends in the juvenile hall. He contends that the trial court erred in imposing a suspended nine-month ranch commitment after finding that the maximum term of confinement was eight months. The Attorney General concedes the error. We modify the judgment to reflect a suspended eight-month ranch commitment.


I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND


On August 16, 2005, a supplemental petition was filed alleging that defendant committed attempted second degree robbery with the enhancement that he personally used a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c), 664, 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The petition further alleged misdemeanor brandishing (id., § 417, subd. (a)(1)). The charges stemmed from an incident in which defendant and another male approached a man and demanded his wallet. Defendant was armed with a long blue colored rod. On November 22, 2005, the petition was amended to add a third count of misdemeanor attempted grand theft (id., § 487, subd. (c)). That same day, defendant pled no contest to the two misdemeanor counts and the felony attempted robbery count was dismissed.


At the disposition hearing, the court and the parties agreed that the maximum period of confinement was eight months--six months for the attempted grand theft plus a consecutive two months for the brandishing offense. In making its dispositional order, however, the court suspended a nine-month ranch commitment.


II. DISCUSSION


Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (c), the court’s disposition order must specify the maximum term of confinement, which is the maximum term of imprisonment that could be imposed on an adult convicted of the same offenses. “[A] minor may not be held in physical confinement for a period in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the offense or offenses which brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.“ (Ibid.) The Attorney General concedes that defendant’s maximum term of confinement was eight months. We modify the dispositional order accordingly.


III. DISPOSITION


The order is modified to reflect a maximum suspended ranch commitment of eight months. As so modified, the order is affirmed.


________________________


RIVERA, J.


We concur:


___________________________


RUVOLO, P.J.


___________________________


REARDON, J.


Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.


Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.

Details Discussion (0) Print Rate Report


0/5 based on 0 votes. The median rating is 0.

Views: 0 views. Averaging 0 views per day.

Previous Article | Next Article

    Home | Contacts | Submit New Article | Site Leaders | Search
    © 2005 Fearnotlaw.com