In re Steven H
Filed 5/9/06 In re Steven H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 STEVEN H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN H., Defendant and Appellant. | F048236 (Super. Ct. No. 25075) OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Thomas S. Burr, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Susan Pochter Stone, 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, and J. Robert Jibson, Deputy Attorney General, Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant, Steven H., was found to be a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1] after allegations charging Steven with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 212) were sustained in Santa Clara County and Steven admitted allegations in a Merced County petition charging him with one count each of petty theft (Pen. Code, § 488) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). Additionally, the Merced County Juvenile Court found true allegations that he violated a court order. On March 29, 2005, the court committed Steven to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice (DCRJJ)[2] for a maximum term of confinement of seven years nine months, which it subsequently modified to six years five months.[3] On appeal, Steven contends the matter must be remanded to the juvenile court because the court misunderstood its discretion to set a lower maximum term of confinement. We agree and we will remand the matter to the juvenile court for further proceedings. In all other respects, we will affirm.
DISCUSSION[4]
Steven contends that section 731 requires the court to set his maximum term of confinement based on a minor's individual facts and circumstances. He further contends that the court misunderstood its discretion in this regard and that the matter must be returned to the juvenile court so that it may exercise its discretion. Respondent concedes and we agree.
Operative January 1, 2004, the Legislature amended section 731, adding the language italicized below: â€
