In re B.E. CA3
Filed 2/17/21 In re B.E. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----
In re B.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C092365 Law.
THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. PDL20200004) Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
B.E.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Minor B.E. admitted to possession of cocaine and the juvenile court placed him on probation. On appeal, the minor contends the juvenile court erred in imposing a maximum term of confinement and that two of the probation conditions are unconstitutional. We conclude the maximum term of confinement must be stricken and the probation conditions should be modified.
1
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A juvenile wardship petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 charging the minor with misdemeanor possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350). The minor admitted the allegation. At the disposition hearing, the minor’s counsel objected to three of the proposed conditions of probation: (1) condition No. 10 prohibiting possession of firearms, knives, or explosives; (2) condition No. 14 subjecting the minor to search or seizure at any time; and (3) condition No. 18 prohibiting the minor from being on the grounds of a school where he is not enrolled. The court rejected counsel’s arguments and placed the minor on six months non-wardship probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a), imposing all proposed probation conditions, and releasing him to his mother. Though not discussed at the hearing, the court’s order also set a one-year maximum term of confinement.
DISCUSSION
I
Maximum Term of Confinement
The minor first argues the juvenile court erred in setting a maximum term of confinement because the minor was never removed from the custody of his parents; the People agree. Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 provides: “If the minor is removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian . . . 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.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726 subd. (d).)
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)