In re Brandon J
Filed 3/27/06 In re Brandon J. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re BRANDON J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON J., Defendant and Appellant. |
F047396
(Super. Ct. No. 04CEJ601376-1)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Adolfo Corona, Judge.
Steven A. Torres, 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, Julie A. Hokans and John A. Thawley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Following a jurisdiction hearing, the court found true allegations that appellant committed assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)) and that in the commission of that offense appellant inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7) and personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)). Following the subsequent disposition hearing, the court ordered appellant committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA) and set appellant's maximum period of physical confinement (MPPC) at 17 years, calculated as follows: the 4-year upper term for the instant offense, 3 years for the great-bodily-injury enhancement and the 10-year upper term for the firearm-use enhancement.
On appeal, appellant contends the court erroneously failed to exercise its discretion in setting the MPPC. We will affirm appellant's commitment to CYA, vacate the court's declaration of the MPPC and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS
Because there is no dispute as to the sufficiency of the evidence, we briefly state the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 139.) Appellant and Robert Tucker were acquainted; they had smoked marijuana together on approximately three occasions. Tucker was deaf but, he testified, he could speak â€
