In re A.O. CA1/5

Filed 3/10/22 In re A.O. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A161968 A.O., (Solano County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. J44673)

Appellant A.O. was declared a dependent child of Solano County in 2019. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.)1 In 2020, the Merced County District Attorney filed a wardship petition in that county alleging appellant had committed the crimes of assault with a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed dirk or dagger and resisting a peace officer. (§ 602; Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 21310, 148, subd, (a)(1).) The allegations were based on an incident in which appellant stabbed an employee of the group home where she was living with a fork, resisted the peace officers

Further statutory references are to the Welfare and 1

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. 1

who responded to the altercation, and was discovered to be carrying scissors inside her waistband. When a minor qualifies as both a dependent and a ward of the juvenile court, she cannot simultaneously be both. (§ 241.1; In re Marcus G. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1012.) Because appellant was already a dependent child when the wardship petition was filed, a report under section 241.1 was prepared to assist the court in determining whether she should be treated as a dependent or a ward under the juvenile law. The report recommended that appellant be treated as a ward. Appellant admitted the wardship petition on the condition that she be considered for a deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) at disposition, which was contemplated to be in Solano County following a transfer. The court determined that wardship under section 602, rather than dependency status, best suited appellant’s needs. The case was transferred to Solano County for disposition, where, because the parties determined DEJ was unlikely, the court allowed appellant to withdraw her admission to the entire petition, waive her request for a DEJ determination, and admit only a single count alleging the possession of a dirk or dagger. Following appellant’s admission to the dirk or dagger count, appellant was placed on probation subject to several conditions. The court denied appellant’s request to reconsider the determination under section 241.1 that she be treated as a ward. Appellant filed this appeal, challenging the determination that she should be treated as a ward and requesting a new