People v. G.C. (In re G.C.)

*784 Appellant G.C. contends that the juvenile court erroneously failed to expressly declare her three 2014 Vehicle Code section 10851 violations to be either felonies or misdemeanors. 1 The dispositional order for the 2014 Vehicle Code section 10851 offenses was entered on November 19, 2015. G.C.'s notice of appeal was filed on February 1, 2016. Since the notice of appeal was untimely as to the November 2015 dispositional order, and G.C. raises no issues as to any other orders, we dismiss her appeal. We publish this opinion to express our disagreement with the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in In re Ramon M. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 665 , 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 158 ( Ramon ), which held that a failure to make an express declaration may be challenged in an appeal from a subsequent dispositional order.

I. Background

An October 2, 2014 petition (Petition A) alleged two violations of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (driving or taking a vehicle) by G.C. in September 2014 along with a Vehicle Code section 12500, subdivision (a) (driving without a license) violation. An October 27, 2014 petition (Petition B) alleged an additional violation of Vehicle Code section 10851,…

I respectfully dissent. The majority dismisses the appeal on the ground that G.C. failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the failure to designate two offenses as misdemeanors or felonies under Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 ( Section 702 ). But G.C. filed her notice of appeal on February 1, 2016-within the 60-day filing deadline for appeals from the juvenile court's orders of December 7, 2015, December 17, 2015, December 30, 2015, and January 26, 2016. Her notice of appeal cites the last of these orders. I would conclude she timely appealed because the juvenile court had an ongoing obligation to determine whether her prior offenses were misdemeanors or felonies.

G.C.'s appeal is based on *789 In re Manzy W . (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199 , 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 889 , 930 P.2d 1255 ( Manzy ), in which our Supreme Court held that the requirement under Section 702 that the juvenile court explicitly designate "wobbler" offenses as misdemeanors or felonies is mandatory. "The language of [ Section 702 ] is unambiguous. It requires an explicit declaration by the juvenile court whether an offense would be a felony or misdemeanor in the case of an adult." ( Id. at p. 1204, 60…