In re Tiffany R. CA2/1

Filed 5/22/14 In re Tiffany R. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re TIFFANY R., a Person Coming B252657 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TJ20816)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TIFFANY R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tamara Hall, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed as modified. Stephen Borgo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Ana R. Duarte, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Appellant Tiffany R. was adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,1 and ordered home on probation. She contends the juvenile court erred in setting the maximum term of confinement because she was committed to the custody of her parents. We agree, and modify the dispositional order to strike any reference to the maximum term of confinement. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 29, 2012, 15-year-old Tiffany R. and another girl, while at school, approached another female student, said, “give me the i[]Pad bitch,” and took an iPad from the other student. On July 18, 2013, a petition under section 602 was filed charging appellant with one count of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. On August 30, 2013, the court amended the petition to add an additional count of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. At the adjudication hearing, appellant made a motion to dismiss under section 701.1 on the basis of insufficient evidence. The court denied the motion, and stated it found the evidence sufficient to support a true finding on count 1. On October 21, 2013, pursuant to a negotiated plea, appellant admitted the lesser included offense of a violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (c) on count 1. The court sustained the petition, found count 1 to be true as a felony, and dismissed count 2. The court declared appellant a ward of the court pursuant to section 602 and placed her home on probation. The court declared the maximum confinement to be three years. DISCUSSION Appellant argues that the juvenile court erred in setting a maximum term of confinement because she was not removed from the custody of her parents, and requests that the juvenile court’s order be corrected to strike the reference to a maximum term of