In re Antonio C.
Filed 9/9/08 In re Antonio C. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
In re ANTONIO C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B202249 (Los Angeles County |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTONIO C., Defendant and Appellant. | Super. Ct. No. FJ38672) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Cynthia Loo, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed as modified.
Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and David Zarmi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Antonio C. appeals from the juvenile courts order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him home on probation. His sole contention is that the juvenile court erred by setting a maximum period of physical confinement. We affirm the order as modified.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In July 2006, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging then 14-year-old Antonio C. had brought a weapon (a knife) on school grounds in violation of Penal Code section 626.10, subdivision (a), a felony.[1] After Antonio C. admitted the allegation, the juvenile court ordered probation on specified conditions and granted deferred entry of judgment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 790.)
In June 2007, a second Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed against Antonio C. for second degree robbery ( 211) (count 1), resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer in the performance of official duties ( 148, subd. (a)(1)) (count 2), and for attempting to dissuade a victim from assisting in the prosecution of a criminal offense ( 136.1, subd. (b)(2)) (count 3).
A jurisdiction hearing was held on the second petition. According to the evidence, Michael B.s cellular telephone was forcibly taken at school by Antonio C. and two other students on June 25, 2007. When he was arrested by school officer Norman Yau, Antonio C. threatened Michael B. with harm and was verbally and physically combative with the officer.
At the conclusion of the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained the second petition as to counts 1 and 2, but dismissed count 3, after finding it had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court terminated deferred entry of judgment on the first petition and ordered Antonio C. released under the house arrest program pending the disposition hearing on the second petition.
At the September 6, 2007, disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared Antonio C. a ward of the court, ordered him home on probation subject to the previously imposed conditions of probation and ordered terminated the house arrest program. The court also calculated the maximum term of physical confinement as six years.
DISCUSSION
As Antonio C. contends, and the People acknowledge because Antonio C. was placed home on probation, the juvenile courts calculation of the maximum term of physical confinement is of no legal effect. (See In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, 572-574 [when a minor is placed home on probation, the juvenile court is not required to include the maximum term of confinement in the disposition order; the maximum term of confinement contained in such an order is of no legal effect]; In re Joseph G. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1735, 1744 [[o]nly when a court orders a minor removed from the physical custody of his parent or guardian is the court required to specify the maximum term the minor can be held in physical confinement].) Accordingly, we strike that portion of the juvenile courts order, and affirm the order as modified.
DISPOSITION
The maximum term of physical confinement is stricken. As modified, the juvenile courts order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WOODS, Acting P.J.
We concur:
ZELON, J. JACKSON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
