In re Ruben M.
Filed 2/6/07 In re Ruben M. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
In re RUBEN M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUBEN M., Minor and Appellant. | B191432 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ35763) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shep Zebberman, Referee. Affirmed as modified and remanded.
Marta I. Stanton, 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, Chung L. Mar and Susan S. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ruben M. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a true finding that on August 3, 2005, he unlawfully possessed a concealable firearm, count 1, in violation of Penal Code section 12101, subdivision (a)(1), and that on the same date he made criminal threats to two separate victims, counts 2 and 3, in violation of Penal Code section 422. He was placed in a camp community placement program for six months, and the maximum period of confinement was determined to be five years and four months. The maximum period of confinement included previously sustained petitions with detention time remaining.[1]
Appellant contends the court's findings that he possessed a concealable firearm and made criminal threats were not supported by the evidence and violated due process. He additionally claims probation conditions are unconstitutionally overbroad, the court failed to declare whether count 1 was a felony or a misdemeanor, and that the court erred in setting the maximum period of confinement. For reasons stated in the opinion, we affirm the order of wardship and remand the matter to the juvenile court with directions to modify certain conditions of probation, to declare whether the offenses were felonies or misdemeanors, and to recalculate the maximum term of confinement.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On August 3, 2005, in the lunchroom at the Hollywood Entertainment High School in Los Angeles County, while eating lunch with her friend C., E. overheard appellant say to his friends, â€
