In re Christopher C.
Filed 7/10/06 In re Christopher C. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
| In re CHRISTOPHER C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER C., Defendant and Appellant. |
C049786
(Super. Ct. No. J-58511)
|
This is an appeal by Christopher C., a minor, from the juvenile court's order committing him to the California Youth Authority (CYA) for a maximum confinement period of seven years six months.
The minor contends (1) he is entitled to specific enforcement of his original plea bargain, (2) the court erred in denying his once in jeopardy plea, and (3) amending the charging petition without notice violated due process. We reject the claims.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 11, 2005, a petition was filed charging the minor with seven offenses arising out of his driving a stolen car and attempting to elude a police officer by means of a chase. The petition gave notice of intent to aggregate five prior offenses to increase the minor's maximum period of confinement.
On February 2, 2005, pursuant to a plea bargain, the minor admitted unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), evading arrest (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), being an unlicensed driver (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)) and the five previously sustained offenses. In taking the plea, the minor was advised his maximum period of confinement for all the admitted offenses was five years. The remaining counts were dismissed.
On March 23, 2005, the matter came on for a contested disposition. The People informed the court for aggregation purposes i.e., to increase the minor's maximum confinement period, they wanted to amend the petition to include the previously sustained, but overlooked, offense of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)).[1] The matter was continued to the following day to permit counsel to discuss the proposed amendment with the minor.
The next day the minor argued for enforcement of the plea bargain as originally made. The court stated it was permitting the amendment and offered to let the minor withdraw his plea. The minor asked to enter a plea of once in jeopardy and the court refused to accept the plea. The case was continued for counsel to further discuss the matter with the minor.
On April 19, 2005, the court denied the minor's motion for specific enforcement of the plea bargain stating, â€
