In re Eric L.
Filed 8/25/08 In re Eric L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ERIC L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B203522 |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC L., Defendant and Appellant. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ15425) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, S. Robert Ambrose, Referee. Modified and affirmed.
Tonja R. Torres, 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, Lawrence M. Daniels and Eric E. Reynolds, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Eric L. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 following his admission that he committed a burglary (Pen. Code, 459). He was placed home on probation and the court declared a maximum term of confinement to be three years. He contends the court erred by setting a maximum term of confinement. 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
The record establishes that on July 22, 2007, a silent alarm was activated at San Antonio Elementary School and when the school police arrived they observed two males running across the campus. After ordering them to stop, the officers found appellant to be in possession of a knife, screwdriver and some school keys. Appellants companion was in possession of several sets of school keys. The keys were later determined to belong to San Antonio Elementary School, Pacific Special School and Huntington Park Elementary School. Appellant and his companion said they were walking in the hallway, saw the keys and decided to take them.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the juvenile court erred by setting a maximum term of confinement in that he was not removed from the physical custody of his parents. His contention is well taken.
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) only applies 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 his parents, there was no confinement, and the courts order setting a maximum term of confinement is erroneous. (In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, 573.) The maximum term of confinement, therefore, must be stricken.
DISPOSITION
The theoretical maximum period of confinement of three years is ordered stricken and in all other respects the order of wardship is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN, P. J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
