In re Anthony R.
Filed 7/31/06 In re Anthony R. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EIGHT
| In re ANTHONY R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B182296 |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY R., Defendant and Appellant. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GJ17017) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Shep Zebberman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed with modifications.
Cynthia L. Barnes, 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, Lance E. Winters and J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________
INTRODUCTION
Anthony R. (the minor) appeals from an order declaring him a person coming under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (§ 602) and committing him to the California Youth Authority (CYA) as a result of his having committed first degree murder in furtherance of gang activities. The minor contends the trial court: (1) failed to exercise its discretion in imposing his maximum period of confinement, and (2) improperly committed him to life without the possibility of parole. The minor also contends, the People concede, and we agree that the court erred in imposing a 10-year gang enhancement because the enhancement does not apply to a first degree murder conviction where a defendant receives a life sentence. (People v. Lopez (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1002, 1011.) We strike the gang enhancement and otherwise affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Viewed in accordance with the usual rules on appeal (Welf. and Inst., § 701; In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809) the evidence established that the minor was a member of the â€
