Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. JJ16953, Donna Groma, Judge.
Laini Millar Melnic, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and David A. Wildman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ZELON, J.
The juvenile court declared N.W., a minor, a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and ordered him removed from parental custody. N.W. appeals and argues the juvenile court erred in failing to apply section 726 subdivision (c), which requires the juvenile court to calculate the maximum period of confinement. We agree and remand.
Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2009, N.W. admitted one count of misdemeanor vandalism in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a). The juvenile court ordered N.W. placed on probation pursuant to section 725, subdivision (a).
Two other counts of misdemeanor vandalism were dismissed.
The District Attorney then filed a petition in June 2010 under section 602 alleging N.W. committed a first degree residential burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. The juvenile court found that N.W. had committed the first degree residential burglary and declared him a ward of the court. The court also found the burglary to be a felony. At the disposition hearing in September 2010, the court ordered N.W. removed from parental custody, but failed to calculate the maximum term of confinement for the two offenses. N.W. appeals.
DISCUSSION
Section 726, subdivision (c) states: “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.”
Even though a minor may not be required to serve the maximum term, the statutory maximum still affects the extent to which the confinement may be prolonged for disciplinary reasons as well as the minor’s parole eligibility. (In re Jovan B. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 801, 811.) Hence, the maximum term serves as an important limit on the discretion of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice, or facility of confinement. (In re George M. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 376, 382.) As both parties have noted, the juvenile court erred in failing to calculate the maximum length of confinement in accordance with the statute when the court elected to remove N.W. from his parents’ custody. Thus, the matter must be remanded so that the juvenile court can calculate the proper term.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is vacated and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court. On remand, the court shall calculate and specify the maximum period of confinement pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (c). In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: PERLUSS, P. J., JACKSON, J.