In Re Prentiss C.

People v. Prentiss C.

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 4th 1484·18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 541·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 441·93 Daily Journal DAR 4683·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2725
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 14, 1993A057418California1,384 words

Opinion

Opinion

White, J.

At a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found Prentiss C. committed the following crimes: rape (Pen. Code, § 261. subd. (2)); forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)); rape by foreign object (§ 289, subd (a)); attempted robbery (two counts) (§§ 211/664); false imprisonment (two counts) (§ 236); exhibiting a firearm (§ 417, subd. (b)); and disturbing the peace (§415.5). The court concluded appellant came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and committed him to the California Youth Authority. In setting the maximum period of confinement, the court calculated full consecutive terms for the sex offenses pursuant to section 667.6, subdivisions (c) and (d). Using this method, the court set the maximum period of confinement at 27 years and 5 months.

The minor raises only one issue on appeal. He contends the court erred by relying on section 667.6 to calculate the maximum period of confinement. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726.) In the minor’s view, the court should have calculated the maximum period of confinement by imposing one-third the base term for the sex offenses under section 1170.1, subdivision (a). We…

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.