In re Loreto A
Filed 2/16/06 In re Loreto A. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re LORETO A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | H027620 (Santa Cruz County Super.Ct.No. JU-17850) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LORETO A., Defendant and Appellant. |
Loreto A., a minor, appeals from the orders of the juvenile court declaring him a ward of the court and placing him at the California Youth Authority (CYA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 602, 800.) His primary claim on appeal is that the juvenile court prejudicially erred in admitting and considering testimony and in-court identifications that were tainted by an impermissibly suggestive photo identification procedure. He also raises numerous claims of error in the dispositional orders.[1] We remand for the limited purpose of correcting the dispositional orders and setting the maximum term of confinement.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On Sunday, November 17, 2002, Jesus Macias was visiting his sister (Maria de las Luz Macias) and her family in Watsonville. They lived on a corner at 452 McKenzie Court. Late in the afternoon as dusk approached, Jesus returned from walking to a nephew's house and he encountered a person on the sidewalk near his sister's house.[2] (In court, he identified the minor as the person he encountered.) Jesus described the person as about five feet, ten inches tall, with a thin build. He had a light complexion, a large â€
