In re W.C. CA2/8
Filed 4/12/22 In re W.C. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 W.C., a Person Coming B310620 Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ40166) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. W.C., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. J. Christopher Smith, Judge. Remanded for resentencing. Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________
W.C. was declared a ward of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602 for driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). On appeal he contends the juvenile court failed to make the required declaration of whether the current offense was a felony or a misdemeanor, nor was the requisite declaration made with respect to W.C.’s aggregated prior offenses. W.C. also seeks a recalculation of his maximum term due to a change in juvenile sentencing law. The People agree, as do we, that resentencing is required in light of the change in the law, and we therefore vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The instant appeal comes after a third wardship petition was filed with respect to W.C. within an 18-month period. The first petition was filed in July 2019; W.C. was alleged to have driven or taken a vehicle without consent. W.C. admitted the offense, and in February 2020, he was placed home on probation subject to various conditions. Three months later, in May 2020, the People filed a second wardship petition alleging that W.C. had committed three counts of grand theft of an automobile. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1).) The petition was amended to allege a count of driving and/or taking a vehicle without consent. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) W.C. admitted the added count on May 28, 2020, and the juvenile court dismissed the other three counts of the petition. On June 3, 2020, the court terminated the home on probation commitment
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)