In re D.H. CA2/6

Filed 9/16/24 In re D.H. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re D.H., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B330685 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. YJ40856) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

D.H. appeals the juvenile court’s order of home probation, which was based on a finding appellant violated Penal Code section 215, subdivision (a) (carjacking). Appellant contends: (1) the evidence did not support the court’s finding that he understood the wrongfulness of his conduct; and (2) the court erred by including a maximum term of confinement in the dispositional hearing’s minute order. We will affirm with

direction for the court to delete that minute order’s references to a maximum term of confinement. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Early one afternoon, Jessica Santos parked her BMW in a shopping center parking lot. When she turned around after exiting her car, she saw a male pointing a gun at her. The male was later identified as appellant. He was standing about two or three feet away from Santos. He was wearing a face mask and a hoodie. He screamed at Santos to give him the car keys. Out of shock, Santos initially did not react, but she ultimately gave him her keys. Santos saw another male standing about five to nine feet away from appellant. After giving appellant her keys, the other male demanded Santos’ bag. She said no, but the other male pulled it. Santos pulled back and ran. She turned back and saw the males inside her car. One appeared to be 15 years old or younger, while the other looked a little bit older—perhaps 16 years old. Appellant was just under 13 years, 6 months old at the time. A detective who reviewed video surveillance of the area testified that appellant and the other male targeted Santos. Appellant’s mother testified she taught appellant the difference between right and wrong and that he “knows the difference . . . .” According to her, appellant knew better than “to take things from people.” Appellant’s mother acknowledged issues with appellant running away and being influenced by others. She had filed missing persons reports. She described him as “out of control.” The court found true the carjacking allegation. It ordered home probation, including a period of house arrest under the Community Detention Program. The court did not set a