In re Daniel L.



















Filed 9/14/10 In re Daniel L. CA2/5









>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115 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
FIVE




>

In re DANIEL L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B221064 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PJ45062)
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL L., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County, Morton Rochman, Judge.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

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, Susan Sullivan
Pithey and Shira B. Seigle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________________

Minor
and appellant Daniel L. was placed home on probation
after the juvenile court sustained a petition declaring him a ward of the court
under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, based on a finding he attempted to commit felony
vandalism in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 594, subdivision (a).^[1] The juvenile court ruled the maximum period
of confinement is 18 months. In his
timely appeal, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the
finding the attempted vandalism was a felony, in that there is no evidence the
damage would have been in the amount of $400 or more. He further contends the juvenile court did
not have the authority to set a maximum term of confinement. The Attorney General argues that the minute
order of the disposition needs to be corrected to delete the indication that
appellant was ordered removed from parental
custody.^[2]

We
conclude the evidence is insufficient to support the felony finding and the
juvenile court did not have authority to set a maximum term of
confinement. We further conclude the
disposition minute order must be corrected to delete the finding that appellant
was removed from the custody of his parents.
We reduce the finding of attempted felony vandalism to attempted
misdemeanor vandalism, strike
the maximum period of confinement, strike the erroneous notation on the minute
order that appellant was ordered removed from parental custody, and in all other
respects affirm the judgment.



STATEMENT OF
FACTS



On
the evening of June 14, 2009, Los Angeles Police Officer
Dan Hadfield, who was piloting a police airship over a large crowd of people,
observed appellant cheering, jumping on the trunk of a patrol car, and dancing
around. As soon as he was illuminated by
the airship's spotlight, appellant leapt from the trunk into the crowd, ran to
a second patrol car, and kicked the rear passenger side window of the second patrol
car several times. He was detained by
officers on the ground.



DISCUSSION



Sufficiency of the Evidence



Appellant contends substantial
evidence does not support the attempted felony vandalism conviction because
there is no evidence the vandalism he attempted would have caused damages in
excess of $400. We agree the evidence is
insufficient to support the felony finding.

â€