In Re Ali A.

People v. Ali A.

Caution
139 Cal. App. 4th 569·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 721·2006 Daily Journal DAR 5853·42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 846·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4009
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 16, 2006C049808California1,234 words

Opinion

Opinion

Robie, J.

The question in this juvenile wardship proceeding is whether the juvenile court has discretion to set a maximum term of physical confinement when the court commits the minor to the custody of his parents subject to probationary supervision, rather than to the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (formerly, the Department of the Youth Authority) (hereafter, the CYA). The answer to that question is “no.” When a juvenile ward is allowed to remain in his parents’ custody, there is no physical confinement and therefore no need to set a maximum term of confinement. Consequently, the maximum term of confinement included in the dispositional order here is of no legal effect.

DISCUSSION

Ali A. (hereafter, the minor) and his companion attempted to rob a woman on the street. The juvenile court sustained a charge of attempted robbery against the minor, declared him a ward of the court, and committed him to the custody of his parents under the supervision of a probation officer.

At the commencement of the disposition hearing, the court stated that “[t]he maximum confinement term is three years.” The minute order of…

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.