In re K.A. CA4/1

Filed 10/3/22 In re K.A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re K.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D079992 THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J243932) v.

K.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part, with instructions. Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Heather M. Clark, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A juvenile wardship petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code

section 6021 alleged defendant K.A. on or about March 30, 2021 committed a felony hit and run injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)—count 1) and a misdemeanor hit and run resulting in property damage (id., § 20002, subd. (a)—count 2). The juvenile court made a true finding on both counts and sustained the petition. At disposition, the court adjudged K.A. a ward of the court, placed K.A. on formal probation, but allowed him to continue residing at home. On appeal, K.A. contends the juvenile court erred (1) in failing to expressly declare whether it was treating count 1 as a felony or misdemeanor because a violation of and punishment under Vehicle Code section 20001 is a so-called “wobbler” if committed by an adult and (2) in stating during the adjudication/jurisdiction hearing the “maximum term of confinement” K.A. faced for his violation of counts 1 and 2. We agree, as do the People, that K.A. is entitled to remand to allow the juvenile court to expressly declare whether his violation of count 1 is a felony or a misdemeanor. On the second issue, we conclude there is no error because the court at disposition allowed K.A. to remain at home in the physical custody of his parents. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW On March 30, 2021 K.A. was driving his friend’s work van while his friend sat in the front passenger seat. K.A. did not have a driver’s license or the van owner’s permission to drive the vehicle. Two more of K.A.’s friends were also inside the van.