In re P.D. CA6

Filed 4/28/15 In re P.D. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re P.D., a Person Coming Under the H041371 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 3-13 JV40242A)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION Appellant P.D. appeals from a dispositional order placing him on probation with various terms and conditions, following a finding that he possessed a knife and a razor blade on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a); counts 1 & 3). On appeal, appellant argues and the Attorney General concedes that the juvenile court failed to make express findings as to whether his offenses were felonies or misdemeanors, as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 702. Because we conclude that the juvenile court did not make an express declaration, we will reverse and remand the dispositional order with direction.

BACKGROUND On August 15, 2013, the district attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging felony possession of a knife on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a); count 1), misdemeanor exhibiting a knife (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(1); count 2), felony possession of a razor blade on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a); count 3), and misdemeanor exhibiting a razor blade (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(1); count 4). At a hearing on January 21, 2014, appellant was found incompetent to stand trial, and the court ordered restoration services. On June 5, 2014, after the juvenile court determined that his competency was restored, appellant admitted counts 1 and 3. Counts 2 and 4 were dismissed. At the hearing, before appellant admitted to counts 1 and 3, the juvenile court orally stated that the two offenses were felonies. Additionally, the minute order for the hearing on June 5, 2014, notes that appellant admitted two violations of Penal Code section 626.10 (counts 1 & 3), and the box labeled “Felony” next to each count is checked-marked. On July 14, 2014, the juvenile court declared appellant to be a ward of the court and placed him on probation with various conditions, including electronic monitoring. The court’s dispositional order included a notation stating that appellant’s offenses were felonies. DISCUSSION Appellant contends that the juvenile court failed to make an express finding, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 702, as to whether his offenses were felonies or misdemeanors. He argues that the matter should be remanded for an express finding. The Attorney General concedes that the juvenile court did not make an express determination and that the matter should be remanded. Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 provides, in pertinent part: “If the minor is found to have committed an offense which would in the case of an adult be 2