Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. YJ30873. Stephanie Davis, Juvenile Court Referee. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.).
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, Scott A. Taryle and Douglas L. Wilson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RUBIN, ACTING P. J.
Minor E.J. appeals from the juvenile court order determining she was a dependent ward of the court because she committed the crime of assault likely to produce great bodily injury. She contends the juvenile court erred by imposing a maximum term of confinement after ordering her home on probation. Because that confinement term is not authorized by law, we strike the term and otherwise affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On the evening of August 12, 2007, minor E.J. attacked a neighbor girl she disliked, punching her in the face and striking her forehead with a glass bottle. Based on this, a petition was filed alleging that E.J. be declared a dependent ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) for having committed two violations of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1): (1) assault with a deadly weapon; and (2) assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. The juvenile court sustained the petition as to the second count, declared E.J. a ward of the court, and placed her on home probation, but also set a maximum term of confinement of four years.
E.J. raises just one issue on appeal: because she was placed on home probation, the maximum confinement term was improper and should be stricken.
DISCUSSION
When a minor is removed from her parents’ physical custody under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, the juvenile court must specify the minor’s maximum term of physical confinement. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (c).) This does not apply when the minor is ordered home on probation. (In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, 573-574.) The minor contends we must therefore order her maximum confinement term stricken. Respondent agrees that setting a maximum term of confinement was inappropriate since minor was not removed from custody of her parents. We disagree with the argument that striking is not necessary because the confinement term is of no legal effect. As we said in In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 541, as have many other appellate decisions, when a juvenile maximum term of confinement is not authorized by law, it should be stricken.
DISPOSITION
The maximum term of confinement set by the court is stricken. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: FLIER, J., BIGELOW, J.