In re Jessica A. CA1/5

Filed 9/15/14 In re Jessica A. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

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

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140512 v. (Sonoma County Jessica A., Super. Ct. No. 37813J) Defendant and Appellant.

Jessica A. appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition order in this proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.1 She contends the order should be modified to specify the maximum term of confinement. We will modify the order in that respect and, as so modified, affirm it. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A juvenile wardship petition alleged that Jessica was under the influence of a controlled substance to the extent she was unable to care for her safety (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)), willfully and unlawfully resisted arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), and unlawfully possessed an intoxicating beverage in public (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25662, subd. (a)).

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained count two (resisting arrest) and count three (possessing intoxicating beverage). Count one was dismissed. At the disposition hearing, Jessica was declared a ward of the court and ordered to participate in the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. As a transition, the court decided to place Jessica in community detention before she entered the ACT program; for those purposes, the court found that Jessica’s continued presence in her mother’s home would be contrary to her welfare and ordered that Jessica’s care, custody, and control would be under the supervision of the probation department. The court did not state a maximum period for her confinement. This appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION Jessica contends the disposition order must be modified to state a maximum term of confinement pursuant to section 726, subdivision (d), which provides: “If the minor is removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian as the result of an order of wardship made pursuant to Section 602, the order shall specify that the minor may not be held in physical confinement for a period in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the offense or offenses which brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.795(b) [“[i]f the youth is declared a ward under section 602 and ordered removed from the physical custody of a parent or guardian, the court must specify and note in the minutes the maximum period of confinement under section 726”].) The maximum term is “the longest potential sentence set forth in the statute defining the offense.” (In re Jose Z. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 953, 966.) There is no dispute that, because Jessica was removed from her mother’s custody and placed in community detention in the custody of the probation department, the juvenile court was obligated to state the maximum time for which Jessica could be