In Re Eddie L.

People v. Eddie L.

Good Law
175 Cal. App. 4th 809·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1100·96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 437
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 2, 2009C059237California2,186 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained a charge of second degree robbery while armed with a firearm against Eddie L., a minor. He was continued as a ward of the court and committed to the Sacramento County Boys Ranch.

On appeal, the minor contends that remand is required for the juvenile court to (1) make a discretionary determination of his maximum period of confinement as provided in Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (c) (section 726(c)), and (2) enter the minor’s maximum period of confinement in the minutes, and (3) conduct a hearing on whether the minor’s mother should be in charge of making his educational decisions.

In the published portion of the opinion, we reject the first contention. As pertinent here, section 726(c) applies to minors who are removed from parental custody but not committed to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF), formerly California Youth Authority (CYA). The statute requires the juvenile court to set the maximum term for such a minor by taking the upper term for the offense and adding a term for any enhancements that have been pled and proved. That is what the juvenile court did…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.