In re Amber M.
Filed 10/24/07 In re Amber M. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re AMBER M. on Habeas Corpus. | D051630 (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. JCM213794) |
Petition for writ of habeas corpus after juvenile court detained ward pending disposition hearing. Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Relief granted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In November 2005 the Orange County Superior Court adjudged Amber M. a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after sustaining a true finding for misdemeanor battery. After a series of transfers between Orange County Superior Court and San Diego Superior Court, in August 2007, Amber began living with her mother again in Oceanside and her case was returned to San Diego Superior Court.
San Diego Superior Court set the case for detention hearing on August 24, 2007. When Amber did not appear for the hearing, the court issued a bench warrant. Police arrested Amber on the warrant on September 12.
Amber appeared with counsel on September 13. The probation department submitted a report stating "available custody time" was three days[1]and recommending that Amber be released to her mother. Counsel requested that the court terminate jurisdiction because there was so little time remaining. Rejecting the probation department's recommendation and counsel's request, the court determined detention was necessary for Amber's protection and for her violation of the order to appear, and remanded her to juvenile hall pending a disposition hearing on September 27.
Amber sought habeas relief on grounds that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding her to custody for a period longer than the maximum term provided by law. We stayed the lower court order, directed that Amber be released to her mother, and requested a response.
The district attorney concedes the maximum period of confinement for Amber's offense is 180 days and, with credit for the 178 days she has served at this point in time and with no Penal Code section 166 petition having been filed, the court may not issue any order committing Amber to custody for more than two days. Given these concessions, we conclude no useful purpose could reasonably be served by issuance of an order to show cause or plenary consideration of the matter, and grant Amber relief. (People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7.)
DISPOSITION
The order of September 13, 2007, detaining Amber pending the September 27 disposition hearing is reversed, and the matter remanded to superior court for further proceedings as appropriate. The stay issued by this court on September 14, 2007, is vacated. This opinion will be final immediately as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).)
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
[1] As of September 13, Amber had served 177 days of the maximum 180-day term for her offense.
