In re M.S.
Filed 12/17/09 In re M.S. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
In re M.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B215429 |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.S., Defendant and Appellant. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PJ43650) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Mark Frazin, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed as modified.
Stephen Borgo, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon and Joseph P. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
M.S. appeals from an order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) following a finding she committed three second-degree robberies (Pen. Code, 211). She was placed home on probation in the home of her mother and a maximum period of confinement was set at seven years. She contends the juvenile court erred by setting a maximum term of confinement because she was not removed from the custody of her parent. For reasons stated in the opinion, we strike the maximum term of confinement and in all other respects affirm the order of wardship.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the order of wardship, and it will suffice to observe that on September 5, October 1, and October 3, 2008, appellant and companions robbed three victims of purses, jewelry, a wallet, an iPod, and a cellular phone as they were walking home.
DISCUSSION
At the disposition hearing, appellants care, custody, and control were placed under the supervision of the probation officer. Appellant was allowed to remain in the home of her mother under various terms and conditions, and a maximum term of confinement was set at seven years.
Appellant contends that because she was not removed from the custody of her parent, the juvenile court erred by setting a maximum term of confinement. Respondent agrees. Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (c) provides, If 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 [Welfare and Institutions 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.
By its express terms, Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (c) applies only if a minor is removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian. Appellant was not removed from the physical custody of her parent, there was no confinement, and the order setting a maximum term of confinement is erroneous and should be stricken. (In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, 573; In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 541.)
DISPOSITION
The maximum confinement term set by the juvenile court is stricken. In all other respects, the order of wardship is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MANELLA, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
