Filed 6/29/26 In re A.P. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re A.P., a Person Coming Under the H053241
Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. Nos. 24JV46836A,
24JV46836B)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
The juvenile court found A.P. committed second degree robbery using a dangerous
weapon (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and in a separate matter committed
second degree robbery and resisted arrest. (Pen. Code, §§ 148, subd. (a)(1), 211.) At the
joint dispositional hearing, the court placed A.P. on probation in his mother’s custody and
set a maximum term of confinement. A.P. argues here, and the Attorney General
concedes, that the juvenile court was incorrect under these circumstances to set a
maximum term of confinement. We accept the Attorney General’s concession based on
the relevant statute. We will strike the maximum term of confinement from the
dispositional order and affirm the judgment as modified.
I. BACKGROUND
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleged A.P. committed
second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and resisted arrest (Pen. Code, § 148,
subd. (a)(1)). Evidence was presented during the contested jurisdictional hearing that
A.P. fled Costco after hiding a liquor bottle in his waistband, punched a loss prevention
employee who tried to stop him from leaving the store, ran from the police, and resisted
being placed in handcuffs. The court found the allegations true and sustained the
petition. A few months earlier in a separate matter, the juvenile court had found that A.P.
committed second degree robbery with a dangerous weapon when he stole an individual’s
laptop by brandishing a knife. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022, subd. (b)(1).)
At the combined dispositional hearing for both cases, the juvenile court declared
A.P. a ward of the court but allowed him to remain in his mother’s custody. The court
placed A.P. on probation, and it identified five years and four months as the maximum
term of confinement.
II. DISCUSSION
When a minor is removed from the physical custody of a parent or guardian, a
juvenile court must specify the maximum term of confinement. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 726, subd. (d)(1).) But the statute authorizes the juvenile court to specify the maximum
confinement term only when a minor is removed from parental custody. (In re Matthew
A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 541.) Because the juvenile court did not remove A.P.
from his mother’s custody, we agree with the parties that the maximum confinement term
should be stricken. (In re A.C. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 590, 592.)
III. DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is modified to strike the maximum term of confinement.
As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
2
____________________________________
Grover, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________
Lie, J.
____________________________
Wilson, J.
H053241
The People v. A.P.