In re C.E. CA2/4

Filed 4/26/13 In re C.E. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re C.E., a Person Coming Under the B240840 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PJ41998)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Benjamin R. Campos, Commissioner. Affirmed. Cynthia L. Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________________

Appellant C.E. appeals from an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction. He contends he was subject to the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court as he had satisfied the statutory criteria required under Welfare and Institutions Code section 450, 1 subdivision (a). He argues this entitled him to a hearing pursuant to section 452. Appellant contends the trial court erred in not providing this hearing, and the order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction should be reversed. We find appellant’s circumstances fail to meet the statutory criteria under section 450, subdivision (a)(1)(A). Therefore, he is not subject to the juvenile court’s transition jurisdiction and is not entitled to a hearing under section 452. We affirm the court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Appellant was ordered into suitable placement in December 2009 and placed at the Leroy Haynes Center. In May 2010, appellant (born January 15, 1994) admitted to one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and the allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). As a result, the court ordered appellant into a long- term camp community placement. After a violation of appellant’s probation, the previous order was terminated, and he was ordered to be placed at the Dorothy Kirby Center. Appellant made progress in his rehabilitation programs and both he and his mother were in support of reunification services. The tentative plan was for appellant to be reunified with his mother with the assistance of various services. In August 2011, the probation officer’s report recommended that appellant remain a ward of the court but that the previous “order of suitable placement” be terminated and that appellant be placed at home on probation with his mother. The court terminated the previous suitable placement order, and appellant was placed at home with his mother. In February 2012, the probation department reported that appellant had turned 18 years old and was doing well at home with his mother. The report recommended that jurisdiction