In re Brent L
Filed 2/10/06 In re Brent L. CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re BRENT L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRENT L., Defendant and Appellant. | A111160 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. J180440) |
Brent L. (appellant) appeals after the juvenile court sustained one molestation allegation in a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602)[1] and committed him to the California Youth Authority (CYA). On appeal, appellant contends the juvenile court (1) failed to exercise its statutory discretion in setting his maximum term of physical confinement at CYA, and (2) erred in its calculation of custody credits. Because we conclude the juvenile court failed to exercise its statutory discretion to determine the maximum term of appellant's confinement, pursuant to amended section 731, subdivision (b), we shall remand the matter to the juvenile court so that it can exercise that discretion. We shall also order the record corrected to reflect an additional day of custody credit. We shall otherwise affirm the order.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 18, 2004, a reopened juvenile wardship petition[2] was filed against appellant, pursuant to section 602, alleging two counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)–counts one and two), and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288.5–count three).
On June 28, 2004, appellant admitted the allegation in count one, and the allegations in counts two and three were dismissed.
At the July 13, 2004 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court expressed its desire to avoid placing appellant in CYA, and ordered preparation of a Guidance Clinic report. The court thereafter instructed the probation department to investigate residential treatment facilities for juvenile sexual offenders and determine which, if any, would accept appellant. Over the following many months, the court held numerous hearings to address appellant's disposition. After appellant was rejected by many treatment programs inside and outside of California,[3] a program in Illinois indicated a willingness to accept appellant into its program.
At a hearing on June 27, 2005, the juvenile court, after noting the problems with the Illinois placement, described CYA as â€
