From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Eva P.

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Sep 26, 2008
No. H032854 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2008)

Opinion


In re EVA P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EVA P., Defendant and Appellant. H032854 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District September 26, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Monterey County Super. Ct. No. J40902

Mihara, J.

Appellant Eva Angelica P. appeals from an order removing her from the custody of her parents and placing her in a foster home, group home, or 24-hour private institution. Appellant contends, and the People concede, that the juvenile court erred by failing to specify the maximum period of confinement for which she could be held. We reverse and remand for the juvenile court to order a maximum period of confinement.

I. Statement of the Case

In April 2006, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that appellant had committed misdemeanor battery on a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (b)). After appellant admitted the allegation, the juvenile court declared her a ward, returned her to the custody of her parents, and placed her on probation for two years.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

In August 2006, a petition was filed under section 777 alleging that appellant violated probation. After appellant admitted the allegation, the juvenile court continued her as a ward in her parents’ custody for a maximum period of confinement of one year.

In December 2006, a new petition under section 602 alleged appellant committed assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). The petition also alleged that the previous disposition regarding the misdemeanor battery had been ineffective in the rehabilitation of appellant and that the previously sustained petition could be used for purposes of aggregation. (§§ 726, 777.) It was further alleged that appellant had violated probation. After appellant admitted the allegations, she was informed that her maximum period of confinement was four years and four months. In January 2007, the juvenile court continued appellant as a ward of the court, placed her in the Placement Intervention Program (PIP) after an order for removal from her parents’ custody was suspended. In July 2007, the juvenile court vacated the PIP order based on appellant’s satisfactory progress.

In August 2007, a petition alleged that appellant had violated probation. (§ 777.) On April 2, 2008, appellant admitted that she had violated probation. At that time, the juvenile court informed her that her maximum period of confinement was four years and four months. On April 16, 2008, the juvenile court continued appellant as a ward of the court, removed her from her parents’ custody and placed her in a foster home, group home, or 24-hour private institution.

We do not include either the facts of the underlying offenses or the facts of the probation violations, because they are not relevant to the issue on appeal.

II. Discussion

Appellant contends that the juvenile court failed to specify, either orally or in the minute order, the maximum period of confinement at the dispositional hearing on April 16, 2008.

The issue of whether the juvenile court must orally pronounce the maximum period of confinement at the dispositional hearing is pending in the California Supreme Court in In re Julian R., review granted February 27, 2008, S159282.

Section 726, subdivision (c) states in relevant part: “If the minor is removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian as the result of an order of wardship made pursuant to Section 602, the order shall specify that the minor may not be held in physical confinement for a period in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the offense or offenses which brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” (See also Rules of Court, rule 5.795(b) [“If the youth is declared a ward under section 602 and ordered removed from the physical custody of a parent or guardian, the court must specify and note in the minutes the maximum period of confinement under section 726”].)

Here, though the juvenile court advised appellant when she made her admissions that the maximum period of confinement could be four years and four months, it failed to set any such time at the dispositional hearing, either orally or in the minutes. Since the court had discretion to set a shorter period of confinement (§ 726, subd. (c); In re Alex N. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 18, 24-25), remand is required.

III. Disposition

The order is reversed and the matter is remanded for the juvenile court to order a maximum period of confinement.

WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian Acting P.J., Duffy, J.


Summaries of

In re Eva P.

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Sep 26, 2008
No. H032854 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2008)
Case details for

In re Eva P.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EVA P., Defendant and Appellant.

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Sep 26, 2008

Citations

No. H032854 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2008)