In re S.S.
Filed 2/16/07 In re S.S. CA1/5
NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibitscourts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified forpublication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). Thisopinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published forpurposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATEDISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re S. S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S. S., Defendant and Appellant. |
A113846
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J0300147) |
Appellant S. S.,born in August 1989, appeals a juvenilecourt order committing him to the CaliforniaYouth Authority (CYA).[1] He contends there wasno substantial evidence that less restrictive alternatives would have beenineffective or inappropriate, or that he would probably benefit from a CYAcommitment. He also contends, and the People concede, the court erred incalculating his maximum term of confinement.
Background
In January 2003, theoriginal Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed in Contra Costa County alleging appellantcommitted one count of felony and two counts of misdemeanor vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851,subd. (a)), resisting a peace officer(Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), hitand run driving (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)), evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.1),two counts of driving while unlicensed(Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)), and receivingstolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). Appellant pled nocontest to felony vehicle theft, resisting a peace officer, evading an officer,and misdemeanor vehicle theft, and the remaining charges were dismissed.
In June 2003, a Welfareand Institutions Code section 602[2] petition was filed in Alameda County alleging appellant committed felony vehicle theft, felony evading anofficer while driving in reckless and wanton disregard for safety (Veh. Code, § 2800.2)and misdemeanor driving while unlicensed. After appellant admitted the autotheft count, the remaining charges were dismissed and the petition wastransferred to Contra Costa County for disposition. He was declared a ward ofthe court and placed at the Orin AllenYouth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) for a nine-month program.
In October 2003,appellant admitted violating his probation by displaying a pattern of noncompliant and disruptive behavior. Asa result, the court extended his commitment by 30 days.
On April 25, 2004, appellant was released to the community for a 90-day conditional release/paroleperiod. However, on May 22 he was detained by police and admitted committingauto theft and receipt of stolen property. His parole was terminated and hewas ordered detained in juvenile hall for 45 days with credit for time served,after which he was to be released to his parents.
In August 2004, asupplemental section 602 petition was filed alleging appellant's commission ofauto thefts in May and August. He pled no contest to the May auto theft, theother count was dismissed and he was recommitted to the OAYRF for anothernine-month term. However, in December a section 777 notice of probationviolation hearing (section 777 notice) issued based on appellant's failure toadhere to the rules at OAYRF and a â€
| Description | Appellant minor, born in August 1989, appeals a juvenile court order committing him to the California Youth Authority (CYA). Appellant contends there was no substantial evidence that less restrictive alternatives would have been ineffective or inappropriate, or that he would probably benefit from a CYAcommitment. Appellant also contends, and the People concede, the court erred incalculating his maximum term of confinement. |
| Rating |
