In re Fernando P.
Filed 3/20/07 In re Fernando P. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
In re FERNANDO P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B190626 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ27044) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FERNANDO P., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
Stephanie Davis, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Katz and Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
Fernando P. appeals from an order of the juvenile court sustaining a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging he had committed misdemeanor vandalism, declaring him to be a ward of the juvenile court, and ordering him home on probation. Fernando P.s sole contention is the court erred by setting a maximum term of confinement. Because the court was not required to set a maximum term of confinement, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 2005, the People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against Fernando P. alleging he had brought a weapon (a BB gun) on school grounds in violation of Penal Code section 626.10, subdivision (b), a felony. After Fernando P. admitted the petitions allegation, the juvenile court ordered probation on specified conditions and granted deferred entry of judgment for not less than 12 months and not more than 36 months. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 790.)
On November 19, 2005, patrol officers arrested Fernando P. after they saw him spray-painting a wall in an alley. The People filed a second petition in January 2006 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 against Fernando P. for felony vandalism. At the adjudication hearing on April 6, 2006, the juvenile court sustained the petition as a misdemeanor, finding the People had failed to prove the damage to the wall exceeded $400. At the disposition hearing, the court terminated deferred entry of judgment, declared Fernando P. a ward of the court, and ordered him home on probation. The court set a maximum confinement term of three years four months.
DISCUSSION
When a minor is removed from the physical custody of a parent or custodian as a result of criminal violations sustained under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, the juvenile court must specify the maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense or offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 726, subd. (c).)
Although the juvenile court did not remove Fernando P. from the physical custody of his mother, it set a maximum term of confinement of five years. Fernando P. contends this was unauthorized and should be stricken.
The juvenile court was not required to set a maximum term of confinement because Fernando P. was not removed from his mothers physical custody. (In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, 573.) The declared maximum term of confinement has no legal effect and does not prejudice Fernando P. (id. at p. 574); there is no reason to delete it from the courts minute order.
DISPOSITION
The order under review is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WOODS, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
ZELON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
