In re Brandon B.

Filed 3/27/07 In re Brandon B. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia Nieto, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI,  21.) Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions.

Kiana Sloan-Hillier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec and Robert S. Henry, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

INTRODUCTION

Brandon B. appeals from an order declaring him to be a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code,  602) after he was found to have committed assault with a firearm (Pen. Code,  245, subd. (a)(2)). He contends the trial court erred in failing to state on the record that his offense was a felony and to explain the maximum term of confinement it imposed. We agree.

FACTS

At about 4:20 p.m. on February 22, 2006, Israel Muro (Muro) was standing on his front porch. Appellant approached the house and fired a gun in Muros direction. Muro ducked as appellant fired several more times. Muro recognized appellant as a member of a rival gang who lived nearby and identified him to police.

In his defense, appellant presented evidence that he was with his grandmother all day on February 22. At the time of the shooting, they were at a shopping mall, buying a present for his grandfather, whose birthday was the following day.

DISCUSSION

While the juvenile courts minute order indicates that appellants offense, which is a wobbler, was a felony, the court failed to make a statement on the record that it was declaring the offense to be a felony. The People agree with appellant that this failure requires a remand for the court to make the declaration. (Welf. & Inst. Code,  702; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.795(a); In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1209.)

The juvenile courts minute order also sets forth a maximum period of confinement, but there is nothing in the record showing if the court itself calculated those time periods or how those calculations were made. Once again, appellant contends, and the People agree, that the case must be remanded for the juvenile court to make that calculation on the record. (Welf. & Inst. Code,  726; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.795(b); see In re Jesse F. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 164, 168.)

The order is reversed insofar as it declares appellants offense to be a felony and states a maximum period of confinement, and the case is remanded with directions to make those determinations on the record. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

SPENCER, P. J.

We concur:

MALLANO, J.

ROTHSCHILD, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.