In re M.U. CA2/8

Filed 2/25/21 In re M.U. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re M.U., a Person Coming Under B302971 the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ (Los Angeles County THE PEOPLE, Super. Ct. No. YJ39345)

Plaintiff and Respondent, v.

M.U., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Morton Rochman, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

Laini Millar Melnick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Toni R. Johns Estaville, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

INTRODUCTION The juvenile court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, finding true that M.U. committed first degree residential burglary and possession of a firearm by a felon. M.U. makes two arguments on appeal. First, he contends the first degree burglary conviction must be modified to second degree because there is no substantial evidence that the residence in question was inhabited at the time of the burglary. Second, he contends there is insufficient evidence he was a felon in possession of a firearm because he had never suffered a prior felony conviction. We agree with M.U.’s second contention, and reverse the adjudication order as to that count only. In light of this, we remand the case to juvenile court with directions to recalculate the maximum term of physical confinement and amend its dispositional order accordingly. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts relevant to M.U.’s appeal are brief and undisputed. At about 12:30 p.m. on June 18, 2019, Lance Grandison noticed four persons in a Black Hyundai Sonata drive up to his neighbor’s house, stay a few minutes, and then drive off. His neighbor is Clarence Brown, a 95-year-old World War II veteran who had lived in the neighborhood for a long time, but was not in the house at the time. About 10 minutes later, Lance noticed the same vehicle return. Lance and his wife Maria observed three young males step out of the car, approach the side of Clarence Brown’s house,