Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GJ23562, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chung L. Mar and Thomas C. Hsieh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, Acting P. J.
Daniel B. appeals from the order of wardship entered following a finding that he committed misdemeanor petty theft. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding, that a maximum period of confinement was improperly imposed, and that one of his conditions of probation was invalid. We affirm the order of wardship and order the juvenile court to strike the maximum term of confinement and to modify the subject condition of probation.
BACKGROUND
On March 22, 2006, a deputy sheriff responding to a complaint about juveniles littering in a park in Duarte spoke with the minor. In response to a question about an amplifier in the minor’s backpack, the minor said that he had taken it from his father’s truck earlier that day without his father’s permission. The minor explained that he had used a screwdriver to unfasten the amplifier from the truck and gardening shears to cut the wires.
The minor’s father (Mr. B.), with whom the minor lived in Duarte, was notified. When Mr. B. looked in his truck, he noticed that the amplifier, which could usually not be seen because it was set behind a seat, was missing. He did not give the minor permission to take the amplifier and did not know when it had been taken. The truck was kept at Mr. B.’s residence in Duarte but to the best of Mr. B.’s knowledge was driven every day by his brother on a gardening route within Los Angeles County.
The minor did not present any evidence on his behalf. He argued that jurisdiction in Los Angeles County had not been established because, although Duarte is in the county, there was no evidence as to the location of the truck when the amplifier was taken.
In sustaining the petition against the minor, the court stated: “We have circumstantial evidence that [the amplifier] was taken in Los Angeles County. And according to the owner of the vehicle, it was his residence. His place of residence was in L.A. County. His child, the minor, lived in L.A. County. When it was noticed it was gone, it was located in Los Angeles County by the deputies in L.A. County wherein the minor said that he took the amplifier by cutting the wires and taking it from his father’s truck. There’s no evidence that he was ever outside of Los Angeles County.”
The minor was declared a ward of the court and ordered home on probation.
DISCUSSION
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
We reject the minor’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Los Angeles County was the proper venue or that the Los Angeles County Superior Court had jurisdiction over this case. If the minor had an objection to territorial jurisdiction, it was his obligation to bring the matter to the court’s attention before the adjudication began. (People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1101–1102; see People v. Betts (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1039, 1048.) In any event, the testimony of the minor’s father that the truck was kept at the Los Angeles County residence of the minor and his father and used in Los Angeles County by the minor’s uncle provided a sufficient basis from which a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the minor had committed theft in Los Angeles County. (People v. Johnson(1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.) Accordingly, the minor’s contention must be rejected.
2. Maximum Period of Confinement
In conjunction with ordering the minor home on probation, the court stated that “[t]he maximum will be six months” and “[t]hat’s six months you can go away to camp.” The minute order states that the “[m]inor may not be held in physical confinement for a period to exceed 6 months.” Citing In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, the minor contends that the minute order must be modified to strike the reference to confinement time. We agree.
“When a juvenile ward is allowed to remain in his parents’ custody, there is no physical confinement and therefore no need to set a maximum term of confinement. Consequently, the maximum term of confinement . . . is of no legal effect.” (In re Ali A., supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 571.) Accordingly, we shall order that it be stricken.
3. Conditions of Probation
Condition No. 15 of the minor’s probation was that he not associate with anyone disapproved of by his parents or his probation officer. The minor contends, and the Attorney General aptly concedes, that under In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 879, 890, this condition should be modified to include a requirement that the minor know of his parents’ or probation officers’ disapproval. We shall so order.
DISPOSITION
The order of wardship is affirmed. The juvenile court is ordered to strike the portion of the order stating that “[m]inor may not be held in physical confinement for a period to exceed 6 months” and to modify condition of probation No. 15 to provide that the minor not associate with anyone known by him to be disapproved of by his parents or his probation officers.
We concur: VOGEL, J., ROTHSCHILD, J.