In re Vincent L. CA5 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/12/13 In re Vincent L. CA5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    In re VINCENT L., a Person Coming Under the
    Juvenile Court Law.
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                F066536
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                            (Super. Ct. No. JJD065384)
    v.
    OPINION
    VINCENT L.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    THE COURT*
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juliet L.
    Boccone, Judge.
    Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
    General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Leanne
    Le Mon and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    -ooOoo-
    *        Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Peña, J.
    On appeal, Vincent L., a minor, contends (1) the juvenile court erred in calculating
    the term of confinement on his pending petitions and (2) the juvenile court failed to
    declare two offenses as either felonies or misdemeanors. We will remand to the juvenile
    court to consider and declare whether two of Vincent L.’s offenses were misdemeanors or
    felonies, and to modify the term of confinement. In all other respects, we will affirm the
    juvenile court’s orders.
    DISCUSSION
    Several juvenile wardship petitions (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), alleging
    defendant had committed various offenses, were before the juvenile court. The facts of
    the offenses are not relevant to these issues here.
    I.     Term of Confinement
    The People concede the juvenile court erred in calculating Vincent L.’s maximum
    period of confinement for the latest offenses as one year eight months, rather than one
    year. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (d); Pen. Code, § 1170.1.) Accordingly, the
    People agree the total term of confinement on all the petitions should be 10 years four
    months, rather than 11 years. We accept the concession and will order the term
    corrected.
    II.    Declaration of Misdemeanors and Felonies
    Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 provides that in a juvenile proceeding,
    “‘[i]f the minor is found to have committed an offense which would in the case of an
    adult be punishable alternatively as a felony or a misdemeanor, the court shall declare the
    offense to be a misdemeanor or felony.’” This language is “unambiguous” and its
    “requirement is obligatory .…” (In re Manzy W. (1997) 
    14 Cal. 4th 1199
    , 1203-1204
    (Manzy W.).) The statute “requires an explicit declaration by the juvenile court whether
    an offense would be a felony or misdemeanor in the case of an adult. [Citations.]” (Id. at
    p. 1204.)
    2.
    The required declaration as to misdemeanor or felony may be made at the
    contested jurisdictional hearing or at the dispositional hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court,
    rules 5.780(e)(5), 5.790(a)(1), 5.795(a).)1 “If any offense may be found to be either a
    felony or a misdemeanor, the court must consider which description applies and expressly
    declare on the record that it has made such consideration, and must state its
    determination as to whether the offense is a misdemeanor or a felony.” (Rule
    5.780(e)(5), italics added; see also rules 5.790(a)(1), 5.795(a).) The juvenile court’s
    determination must also be noted in an order or in the minutes from the hearing.
    (Rules 5.780(e), 5.795(a).)
    Having reviewed the record, we conclude the matter should be remanded for the
    juvenile court to expressly determine whether two of the offenses were misdemeanors or
    felonies.
    DISPOSITION
    The juvenile court’s dispositional order is vacated, and the matter is remanded to
    the juvenile court to exercise its discretion and expressly determine whether the receiving
    stolen property offense (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); Sept. 14, 2012 petition) and the
    attempted second degree burglary offense (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 664; Nov. 19, 2012
    petition) were misdemeanors or felonies. The juvenile court is also directed to correct the
    maximum term of confinement to 10 years four months, unless declaration of the two
    aforementioned offenses requires the court to recalculate the term. In all other respects,
    the juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
    1      All rule references are to the California Rules of Court unless otherwise noted.
    3.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: F066536

Filed Date: 12/12/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014