Filed 8/31/18 In re E.B. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende and Kevin S., we note an error in the commitment order that requires correction. We order the commitment order corrected and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

In March 2015 then 17-year-old E.B. (the minor) was alone with then five-year-old L.D.[1] E.B. touched L.D.’s genitals with his hand.

An original Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed alleging two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct against L.D., a child under 14 years old (Pen Code, § 288, subd. (a)). In November 2016 that petition was dismissed and superseded by an amended original petition alleging two additional counts of lewd and lascivious conduct against a different victim, a child under 14 years old. The minor pleaded no contest to count 1 and the juvenile court dismissed the remaining counts.

The juvenile court adjudged the minor a ward of the court and committed him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities, for a maximum confinement term of four years. The trial court awarded 365 days of custody credit, imposed a restitution fine of $100 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (b)), and awarded direct victim restitution.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436; In re Kevin S., supra, 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) The minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from the minor.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor. We have, however, noted an error in the commitment order to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The commitment indicates the maximum period of confinement is eight years. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court indicated the maximum period of confinement was four years. The juvenile court is not required to make an oral pronouncement of the maximum confinement period at the disposition hearing. (In re Julian R. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 487, 497.) However, here, the juvenile court did make such an oral pronouncement, and there is no indication in the record that the juvenile court reconsidered its exercise of discretion to calculate a higher maximum period of confinement. (See In re D.H. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 722, 725.) Where “ ‘the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts cannot be reconciled, the part of the record that will prevail is the one that should be given greater credence in the circumstances of the case.’ (People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1346.)” (In re D.H., supra, at p. 725.) The disposition report and the minute order both reflect a four-year maximum period of confinement. Under the circumstances of this case, we find the reporter’s transcript, minute order, and disposition report have the greater credence. Accordingly, the entry in the commitment order is presumably the result of clerical error, which we will order corrected.

DISPOSITION

The dispositional order is affirmed. The juvenile court is directed to prepare a corrected commitment order and forward a certified copy of the corrected version to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities.

RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

DUARTE , J.

HOCH , J.