In re W.E.
Filed 8/14/13 In re W.E. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 EIGHT
In re W.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B246559
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
W.E.,
Defendant
and Appellant.
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
No. TJ20377)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County. Kevin L. Brown,
Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Stephen Borgo,
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.
__________________________
Minor
W.E. appeals from the order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court,
contending that the court erred by setting a maximum term of confinement
because he was put on probation at home.
We agree, direct that the order be modified to delete the term of
confinement, and affirm the modified order.
FACTS AND DISCUSSION
The
juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that minor W.E. took part in a
robbery, and then declared him a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The court placed the minor on probation at
home, but also set a maximum term of confinement of five years. Minor contends the maximum term of
confinement may not be imposed because he was placed on probation and was not
removed from parental custody. (Welf.
& Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (c) [court must specify maximum term
of confinement when minor is removed from parental custody].) He asks that we modify the juvenile court’s
order to delete the term of confinement.
Respondent contends we need do nothing because the term of confinement
was erroneous and has no legal effect.
However, as this court has already held, the reference to a term of
confinement should be stricken under these circumstances. (In re
Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 541.) We shall do so here.
DISPOSITION
The
maximum term of confinement set by the court is stricken. In all other respects the judgment is
affirmed.
RUBIN,
J.
WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW,
P. J. FLIER,
J.
