In re Ryan L.

Filed 3/12/08 In re Ryan L. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

The juvenile court found Ryan L. had committed carjacking (Pen. Code,[1] 215) and robbery ( 211). Ryan contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that the maximum term of confinement was calculated incorrectly. We agree, and order the dispositional order modified to reflect the correct term.

I. Background

Shameka Williams pulled into her driveway on the evening of February 16, 2007, with her three-year-old son in the back seat of her car. She saw Ryan and another youth walking by the house. She got out of the car with her purse and keys in her hand, went around to the other side of the car to get her son, and saw Ryan and the other youth coming back toward her. She asked them, Are you guys okay? Whats up? The other youth pulled out a gun and told Williams to give him her money. Williams told him, My son is in the car. Take whatever you want and let me get my son out of the car. She gave him her purse and keys, got her son from the car, and ran upstairs. Ryan and the other youth got into Williamss car and drove away. The car was later recovered, although Williamss keys and drivers license remained missing.

A petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleged Ryan had committed carjacking ( 215) and robbery ( 211). The robbery count alleged that Ryan had robbed Williams of her purse, key, 2006 Dodge [and] personal property. Each count included an allegation that defendant had been armed with a firearm. ( 12022, subd. (a)(1).) At a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that Ryan had committed carjacking and robbery, and found true one firearm enhancement. The court calculated the maximum period of confinement as 11 years, based on nine years for the carjacking, one year (one-third the midterm) for the robbery, and one year for the firearm enhancement.[2] At a dispositional hearing, the court declared Ryan a ward of the court, removed him from his parents custody, and ordered him to be placed in a family or group home.

II. Discussion

Ryan contends the juvenile court should not have included time for both the carjacking and the robbery in calculating his maximum period of confinement. When a minor is removed from the custody of a parent or guardian pursuant to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, the order must specify that physical confinement cannot exceed the maximum term of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same crime. (John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 183; Welf. & Inst. Code, 726, subd. (c), 731, subd. (b).)

Section 215, which prohibits carjacking, provides that a person may be charged with both carjacking and robbery ( 211), but that no defendant may be punished under this section and Section 211 for the same act which constitutes a violation of both this section and Section 211. ( 215, subd. (c).) A more general statute, section 654, provides in pertinent part: An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. Section 654 applies to consecutive, or aggregated, terms calculated under Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (c), because that section incorporates Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), which in turn expressly refers to Penal Code section 654. (In re Asean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 474.)

Ryan argues, and the Attorney General concedes, that the violation of section 211 should not have been included in his maximum term of confinement. As stated in In re Jose P. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 458, 469, Section 654 . . . prohibits multiple punishment if the defendant commits more than one act in violation of different statutes when the acts comprise an indivisible course of conduct having a single intent and objective. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one. [Citation.] . . . . [] On the other hand, section 654 does not apply when the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives independent of each other. . . . The principal inquiry in each case is whether the defendants criminal intent and objective were single or multiple. [Citation.]

The evidence here shows that the carjacking and robbery were accomplished by the same acts. Ryan and the other youth used a gun, demanded Williamss money, took her purse and keys, and drove away in her car. Indeed, in finding true only one firearm enhancement, the juvenile court stated, I believe this was all one crime, even though its two different charges. Under the standards of either section 654 or section 215, Ryans maximum term of confinement should not have included time for both offenses. (See People v. Dominguez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 410, 419-420 [carjacking and robbery constituted same act where the defendant placed metal object to the victims neck and demanded everything he had and the victim then handed over jewelry and vehicle].)

Thus, as Ryan and the Attorney General agree, the maximum term of confinement should have been 10 years, based on the upper term of nine years for the violation of section 215, with an additional year for the firearm enhancement.

III. Disposition

The dispositional order made on June 7, 2007, is ordered modified to fix a maximum term of confinement of 10 years. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

________________________

RIVERA, J.

We concur:

___________________________

RUVOLO, P. J.

___________________________

SEPULVEDA, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

[2] The minute order for the dispositional hearing indicated the maximum term of confinement was 12 years.