In re Andrew E
Filed 5/1/06 In re Andrew E. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re ANDREW E., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW E., Defendant and Appellant. |
F049055
(Super. Ct. No. JJD057916)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Valeriano Saucedo, Judge.
Roshni Mehta, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Janis Shank McLean and Barton Bowers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
In March 2004, in a juvenile wardship proceeding in Fresno County, appellant Andrew E., a minor, admitted committing a violation of Penal Code section 415.5, subdivision (a) (disturbing the peace on a school campus), a misdemeanor. In June 2004, in a wardship proceeding in Tulare County, appellant admitted committing a misdemeanor violation Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a) (vandalism). In October 2005, following a disposition hearing covering both proceedings, the Tulare County juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602;[1] placed him on probation; committed him to the custody of the probation department for placement in a group home; and declared appellant's maximum period of physical confinement to be one year one month.
On appeal, appellant contends (1) the juvenile court erred in calculating appellant's maximum period of physical confinement, and (2) the court erroneously failed to exercise its discretion in determining appellant's maximum period of physical confinement. We will affirm.
DISCUSSION
Calculation of the Maximum Period of Physical Confinement
Where, as in the instant case, a minor is declared a ward of the court under section 602 and ordered removed from the custody of a parent or guardian, the court is required to specify the maximum period the minor may be held in physical confinement. (§ 726, subd. (c).) This maximum period of physical confinement (MPPC) is defined as the â€
