In re Kevin G.
Filed 5/20/13 In re Kevin G. CA2/4
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 FOUR
>
In re KEVIN G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B241711 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ49968) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEVIN G., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Robert J. Totten, Commissioner. Affirmed as modified.
Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General,
Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant
Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Kevin G. appeals from an order of
wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 following the
juvenile court’s finding that he committed the offense of failure to disclose
the origin of a recording or audiovisual work in violation of Penal Code
section 653w, subdivision (a). He was
placed home on probation, and the maximum period of confinement was determined
to be one year. Appellant’s sole
contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in imposing a maximum
confinement term because he was placed home on probation. We strike the maximum period of confinement
and affirm in all other respects.
BACKGROUND
On March 7, 2012, a petition was filed under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that appellant, who was 15 years
old at the time, committed the crime of failure to disclose the origin of a
recording or audiovisual work, a felony, in violation of Penal Code section
653w, subdivision (a).
name="_ftnref1" title="">
allegations of the petition to be true.
The juvenile court sustained the petition, granted appellant’s motion to
reduce the offense to a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (b)), and
declared appellant a ward of the court.
The court placed appellant home on probation, imposed various conditions
of probation, and determined the maximum term of confinement to be one
year. Appellant filed a timely notice of
appeal.
Appellant’s sole contention on appeal
is that the juvenile court erred in setting a maximum term of confinement
because he was committed to the custody of his mother. We agree.
Welfare and Institutions Code section
726, subdivision (d) provides that “[i]f the minor is removed from the physical
custody of his or her parent or guardian as the result of an order of wardship
made pursuant to [Welf. & Inst. Code] Section 602, the order shall specify
that the 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.â€
Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (d) applies only
if a minor is removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or
guardian. Where, as here, a minor is
placed home on probation and not removed from his parents’ custody, the
juvenile court lacks the authority to set the maximum period of confinement. (In re
Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 541.)
The
maximum term of confinement is stricken.
In all other respects the order of wardship is affirmed.
WILLHITE,
J.
We
concur:
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] The underlying facts are not
pertinent to this appeal and therefore are not set forth in this opinion.
