In re A.M. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Apr 3, 2014 No. E058995Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a juvenile court lacks the authority to impose a firearm prohibition under Penal Code section 29820 when the minor has not been adjudged a ward of the court.

Issues

Whether a juvenile court may impose a firearm prohibition under Penal Code section 29820 on a minor placed on informal probation without being declared a ward of the court.

Disposition. Affirmed as modified.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because the minor was not declared a ward of the court, and was instead granted informal probation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a), the court was not authorized to impose this prohibition.”

“Because the minor was not adjudged a ward, the juvenile court erred when it made its order under Penal Code section 29820, subdivision (a)(2).”

Filed 4/3/14 In re A.M. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, E058995 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.Nos. RIJ1300389 & v. DL043376001)

A.M., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Roger A. Luebs, Judge.

Affirmed as modified.

Paul J. Katz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Warren Williams, Deputy

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The juvenile court placed the minor on informal probation after finding him guilty

of second degree robbery. The minor appeals from the court’s order prohibiting him

from possessing a firearm until the age of 30. The minor argues the court did not declare

him a ward of the court, and such a declaration is statutorily required before a juvenile

court can impose this firearm condition. The People concede the issue and we agree.

In re A.M. CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

A.M., OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.

KING J.

AI Brief