Opinion
A102586.
11-18-2003
In re ROBERT G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT G., Defendant and Appellant.
Robert G. appeals from a dispositional order directing out of home placement, initially in a secure facility offering psychiatric and medical treatment. He contends the juvenile courts failure to demonstrate awareness of its discretion to run subordinate terms concurrently gives rise to a presumption the court would have done so had it been aware of its discretion. He also notes that his maximum term of confinement was erroneously recorded in the order, an error conceded by the Attorney General.
Roberts challenge to the imposition of consecutive maximum terms is meritless. Such a claim is waived if not raised below. (Cf. In re Khonsavanh S. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 532, 536-537; In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 814.) In any event, on a silent record we presume the court exercised its discretion. (People v. Moran (1970) 1 Cal.3d 755, 762; People v. Mosley (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 489, 496.) This is not a case like In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 1199, 1209, where the court failed to make a statutorily required finding. The court elected to impose consecutive maximum terms of confinement, as it was authorized to do by Welfare and Institutions Code section 726. (In re Jesse F. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 164, 168.) It was not required to state reasons for that routine exercise of discretion. (Id . at p. 169; In re Ismael A. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 911, 913, 914.) Nor was the court required to make a record of its understanding that it had discretion to impose concurrent maximum terms.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is modified to reflect a four year maximum term of confinement. As so modified, the order is affirmed.
We concur: Corrigan, Acting P. J., Pollak, J.