In re Yuriy A
Filed 4/14/06 In re Yuriy A. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
In re YURIY A., a Person Coming Under
The Juvenile Court Law.
A110825
THE PEOPLE,
(Contra Costa County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. J04-01665)
v.
YURIY A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
______________________________________/
Yuriy A. appeals from a disposition committing him to the California Youth Authority (CYA). He contends the juvenile court failed to exercise its discretion when calculating the maximum period of his confinement. We will reject this argument and affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2004, appellant pleaded no contest to a single allegation of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460.) At disposition, the court placed appellant in a ranch program.
On April 7, 2005, while being transported to juvenile hall, appellant escaped. The police were able to capture appellant after chasing him down and stunning him with a taser.
Based on these facts, a new petition was filed alleging appellant had escaped from a juvenile facility. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 871.)[1] Again, appellant admitted the allegation. At a dispositional hearing conducted on June 27, 2005, the court committed appellant to CYA.
II. DISCUSSION
The juvenile court committed appellant to CYA for the maximum possible six-year term for his underlying burglary offense. The court did not impose any additional time for the escape finding. Appellant now contends his case must be remanded for a new dispositional hearing because the record fails to show that the court was aware it had the discretion under section 731, subdivision (b)[2] to commit him to CYA for less than the maximum term.
Appellant is correct that recent amendments to section 731, subdivision (b) grant discretion to the juvenile to commit a minor to CYA for less than the maximum term. (See In re Sean W. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1183; In re Carlos E. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1542; In re Jacob J. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 429, 434-437.) Furthermore, he is correct that the transcript of the dispositional hearing does not show the court was aware of that discretion. However, the transcript also fails to show the court was unaware of its discretion.
A lower court's ruling is presumed to be correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) One aspect of that presumption is that we must presume the lower court was aware of and applied the correct statutory and case law. (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644, overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13.) Based on the ambiguous record before us, we are required to presume the juvenile court was aware of its discretion under section 731, subdivision (b) and that the court exercised that discretion to impose the maximum term.
It is entirely reasonable to apply the presumption under the facts of this case. The recent amendments to section 731, subdivision (b) unambiguously grant the juvenile court the discretion to place a juvenile in CYA for less than the maximum possible term. (In re Sean W., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1183; In re Carlos E., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1541; In re Jacob J., supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 436.) The appellate cases expressly so holding -- In re Sean W., In re Carlos E., and In re Jacob J. -- predate the dispositional hearing in this case. The trial court was fully capable of identifying and applying this unambiguous law. There is no reason not to apply the presumption.
Appellant contends it would be inappropriate to apply the usual presumption because the statutory language at issue was new and there was controversy over its legal meaning. We simply disagree. The amendments to section 731, subdivision (b) became effective January 1, 2004. (See In re Jacob J., supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 435.) The dispositional hearing in this case occurred 18 months later in June 2005. Furthermore, by the time of the dispositional hearing, at least three published decisions had held that court's have the discretion to commit a juvenile to CYA for less than the maximum term. Appellant has not cited, and we are not aware of, any case that reached the opposite conclusion. This law was not â€
