Because We Know Legal

A blog devoted to posting the typical work of California's courts of appeals; the published "unpublished", yet uncitable decisions that the court makes on a daily basis.

Friday, December 02, 2005

In re William M.

Filed 12/1/05 In re William M. CA5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS



California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT













In re WILLIAM M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.




THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


WILLIAM M.,


Defendant and Appellant.




F047697



(Super. Ct. No. JJD055339)




MODIFICATION OF OPINION; DENIAL OF REHEARING



[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]



THE COURT:*


It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 15, 2005, be modified as follows:


1. On page 2, line 3, delete the words “for a maximum term of confinement of 11 years” so the sentence reads:


In this proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, William M. appeals a dispositional order committing him to the California Youth Authority (CYA).


2. On page 3, lines 11 and 12, delete the sentence that reads “Without further comment the court imposed the maximum term of confinement of 11 years” and substitute the following:


The court imposed sentence on each count, and in some instances imposed no time to be served for particular counts, thus exercising its discretion. The court stated the maximum term of confinement was 11 years


3. On page 3, line 12, delete footnote 1:


4. On page 3, line 14, add a new footnote 1 at the end of the first sentence of the second full paragraph on the page:


Although the parties have not raised the issue of the calculation of the maximum term of confinement to CYA, there is a discrepancy between the maximum term of confinement of 11 years announced by the juvenile court and the actual maximum term of confinement achieved when the component terms imposed by the juvenile court are added together. In addition, the order of commitment to CYA contained in the clerk’s transcript inaccurately reflects some of the individual terms imposed by the court and the total term. The juvenile court imposed a term of three years for the violation of Penal Code section 12101, subdivision (a) contained in the August 5, 2002 petition; the order incorrectly states the term as eight months. The juvenile court imposed a term of 16 months for the violation of Penal Code section 459 (burglary in the first degree) contained in the December 29, 2004 petition; the order of commitment incorrectly states that the court imposed a term of six years. When these two corrections are made to the order of commitment and the terms are added together, the resulting total maximum term of confinement should be 10 years, four months.


5. Beginning with the words “An order is presumed correct …” at page 3, line 14, delete the remainder of the opinion, including the disposition, and substitute the following:


Disposition


The trial court is ordered to correct the order of commitment to reflect the changes set forth in footnote 1 above and to forward the corrected order to the appropriate authorities. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.


This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.


Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.


Courtesy of California Legal Resource Directory, a source for providers and consumers of legal resources. Because we know legal.


Escondido Lawyers are available and standing by to help you.


* Before Vartabedian, Acting P. J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home