In re Michael K.
Filed 7/18/06 In re Michael K. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| In re MICHAEL K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B186602 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TJ15141) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL K., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles Clay III, Judge. Wardship order affirmed. Dispositional order modified in part.
Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Katz, and Lauren E. Dana, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The minor, Michael K., appeals from the October 11, 2005 order declaring him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and placing him in a camp community placement program. On August 10, 2005, he pled no contest to the allegations of a petition filed on July 6, 2005, charging him with one count each of firearm and live ammunition possession by a minor. (Pen. Code,[1] § 12101, subds. (a)(1), (b)(1).) At the October 11, 2005 disposition hearing, the juvenile court ordered the minor placed in a camp-community placement program and set his maximum period of physical confinement at three years, eight months. The minor argues the juvenile court: improperly set his confinement time beyond the statutory maximum; failed to exercise its discretion in setting the confinement term; and improperly imposed a probation condition restricting his presence near a school. We affirm the wardship order with modification. We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment. (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319; People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; Taylor v. Stainer (9th Cir. 1994) 31 F.3d 907, 908-909; see also In re Cheri T. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1404; In re Babak S. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1088-1089 [standard of proof is the same in juvenile proceedings as that required in adult criminal trials]; In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275 [same].) On July 1, 2005, sheriff's deputies saw the minor and other companions next to a riverbed on a dead end street. The minor walked away as the deputies approached. The minor ran when the deputies got out of the patrol car. The minor removed a black handgun from the back of his waistband as he ran. The minor ran into a house, which was not his residence. The deputies called for assistance. The deputies detained a male who came out of the house. Thereafter, the minor was detained as he came outside. After receiving permission from the homeowner to search the house, the deputies found a handgun hidden in a shoebox in a bedroom closet. The homeowner denied any knowledge of the handgun. The gun was loaded with six live 9 millimeter rounds in the magazine and one live round in the chamber. The handgun was stolen in June 2005.
First, the minor argues and the Attorney General concedes that the juvenile court improperly set the maximum confinement time at three years, eight months. The juvenile court ruled that the minor's section 12101, subdivision (a)(1) offense amounted to a felony and the subdivision (b)(1) offense a misdemeanor. In the case of In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 536, the California Supreme Court held: â€
