Opinion
C084072
06-18-2018
In re O.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. O.R., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JD16440)
Appellant O.R. appeals from the juvenile court's judgment and dispositional order adjudging him a ward and ordering him home on probation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 602, 800; statutory section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) He contends the juvenile court erred by including a maximum term of confinement. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Recitation of the underlying facts regarding appellant's offense is unnecessary in light of his contentions on appeal.
Pursuant to a section 602 petition, the minor pleaded no contest to a charge of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c).) The plea form indicated a maximum term of confinement of three years. At the plea hearing, the juvenile court made additional findings following its acceptance of the minor's plea. While making those findings, the juvenile court asked, "Maximum confinement time?" The district attorney, with the agreement of minor's counsel, informed the court the maximum term was three years.
The probation report recommended six months' probation in mother's custody. The report also stated that the minor had a total of six days' custody credits.
At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court stated, "the Court is going to follow probation's recommendation and grant 725 (a). The Court does want to make sure the minor understands that he needs to comply with the terms and conditions that I am about to impose, because if you do not do that, then you will be made a ward of the Court. And instead of this potentially being dismissed in six months, we'll continue. So it is very important that you understand that you need to comply with the terms and conditions that I'm about to outline."
The juvenile court proceeded to modify various probation orders proposed in the probation report and adopted the findings and orders with the modifications. The juvenile court then asked, "Days in Juvenile Hall?" The probation officer answered, "Six." The court next asked for attorney hours, and was told two by minor's counsel. The rest of the proceeding was spent scheduling a restitution hearing. The juvenile court concluded the hearing by admonishing the minor to comply with the terms of probation.
The probation order is based on a form modified in handwriting by the juvenile court. It states the juvenile court adopted the recommendations and findings in the probation report "as modified." There was no mention of a maximum term of confinement in the probation order. At the bottom of the order there were spaces for days in juvenile hall and attorney hours. It was filled in showing six for days in juvenile hall and two attorney hours.
DISCUSSION
The minor contends the juvenile court erred in stating a maximum term of confinement because he was placed on probation at home.
We agree that a juvenile court is not authorized to set a maximum term of confinement when the minor is allowed to remain in his or her parents' custody. When a minor is not removed from the physical custody of his parent or custodian as a result of criminal violations sustained under section 602, section 726, subdivision (d) does not apply and the juvenile court is without authority to set a maximum term of confinement. (In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 541; In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, 571 ["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"].)
We disagree with the minor's contention that this happened here. The three-year maximum term was mentioned only in the context of the minor's plea to robbery before the disposition hearing. Informing the minor of his potential maximum term of confinement is sensible and within the juvenile court's authority in this context. While the juvenile court inquired into the maximum term after the plea was accepted, the plea form was signed by the minor before the plea colloquy informed him of the three-year term. Rather than establishing the maximum term, the plea form did no more than inform the minor of his maximum exposure if he accepted the plea agreement. Likewise, restating this important information just after taking the plea, did not, as the minor contends, "set" his maximum term of confinement.
The minor relies on the juvenile court adopting the findings and orders from the probation report and its inquiry regarding the number of days the minor spent in juvenile hall. However, neither the probation report nor the juvenile court's orders set or even state a maximum term of confinement. While the court determined the minor had spent two days in juvenile hall and recorded that in the appropriate area in the probation order form, this did not, as the minor suggests, constitute an award of conduct credits. It merely memorialized the time the minor spent in custody in case he is ordered into custody in the future.
Since the juvenile court did not set a maximum term, there is no error for us to correct.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL, J. We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J. BUTZ, J.