In re A.T. CA6
Filed 3/3/21 In re A.T. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.T., a Person Coming Under the H047667 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV42470)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.T.,
Defendant and Appellant. After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained multiple allegations against the minor A.T. At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered the minor confined to a ranch program for six to eight months and set the maximum period of confinement at 11 years four months. A.T. raises two claims on appeal. First, as to two charges that are “wobblers,” he contends the trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion to designate them as felonies or misdemeanors under In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1204 (Manzy W.). We conclude this claim is without merit. Second, A.T. contends the trial court erroneously determined the maximum period of confinement because the terms for two charges would have been stayed under Penal Code section 654 if an adult were sentenced for the same offenses. The Attorney General concedes this claim, and we accept the concession. Accordingly, we will reverse the
judgment and remand for the sole purpose of determining the maximum period of confinement. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background The prosecution filed multiple wardship petitions against A.T. starting in 2017. A.T. does not challenge any aspect of the earlier petitions on appeal; the procedural details and facts of those earlier petitions are immaterial to this opinion. A.T. only raises claims in connection with Petition C filed in 2019 alleging nine counts: Count 1—assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(4))1; count 2—attempted carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)); count 3— second degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)); count 4—taking or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); count 5—hit and run driving causing property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)); count 6—first degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (a)); count 7—attempted first degree burglary (§§ 460, subd. (a), 664); count 8— possession of burglar tools (§ 466); and count 9—second degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (b)). After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition on all counts. At the dispositional hearing, the court committed A.T. to the Enhanced Ranch Program for six to eight months. The court designated all counts as felonies except for count 5 (misdemeanor hit and run) and count 8 (possession of burglar tools). The court calculated the maximum time as 11 years four months. B. Facts of the Offenses 1. Counts 1 through 3 On June 13, 2019, Benjamin Ruiz Lopez was walking to his car when he saw A.T. and another person walking on the street in a nearby intersection. A.T.’s companion
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)