In re Armand H.

Filed 6/12/06 In re Armand H. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles R. Scarlett, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeralyn Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

Minor Armand H. timely appealed from the order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Armand contends the court erred when it denied his request for an in camera hearing to consider whether a victim's prior sexual experiences would be admitted to attack her credibility and when it imposed an eight year maximum term rather than a four year term. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS

I. Procedural Background

A petition alleged appellant came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he had committed two counts of forcible oral copulation (counts 1 & 3), one count of attempted sodomy by use of force (count 2), one count of sodomy by use of force (count 4), and one count of sexual penetration by foreign object (count 5).

At the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition as to counts 1 through 3 and dismissed counts 4 and 5. The court declared appellant a ward of the court and ordered him placed in the care, custody, and control of the probation officer. The court ordered appellant be placed in a facility that provided mental health counseling as well as counseling especially designed for individuals who had committed a sexual offense. The court set the maximum period of confinement at eight years.

II. Factual Background

A. Prosecution

R. was ten years old at the time of trial. R. began living with her cousin Kimberly in the summer of 2004 when R. was nine years old. Appellant, who was Kimberly's son, also lived there with his sister and a friend of Kimberly's.

R. testified appellant molested her while she was living in Kimberly's home. One time during the summer, appellant poked R.'s â€