1

Filed 3/10/14 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

----

In re A.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C073242

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v

.
A.C.,

Defendant and Appellant. (Super. Ct. No. 69512)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, Thomas M. Harrington, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Carol A. Koenig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defen dant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Julie A. Hokans, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

A .C., a 16

- year

- old minor, appeals from the juvenile court ’s order sustain ing a Welfare and Institutions Code, section 602, subdivision (a) petition alleging t hat t he
minor committed a robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), engaged in a criminal conspiracy ( Pen.
Code, § 182 , subd. (a)(1) ), and brandished an imitation firearm ( Pen. Code, § 417.4).

The minor ’ s only claim on appeal is that the juvenile court “ erred in setting a

maximum confinement time when he was released home on probation ” and asks that we

strike the portion of the order including the maximum confinement term . The People
agree it was error to set a maximum confinement term under the circumstances

, but argue we need not remedy the error

. We will strike the term

. DISCUSSION

I n In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal. App.4th 569 ( Ali A. )

, we held the juvenile court

abused its discretion when it set a maximum confinement term for a minor who, like

A.C. , was not removed from the custody of his parents. ( Id. at p . 57 1 ) We concluded,
however, that the erroneous incl usion of the term had no legal effect and thus caused no
prejudice

. ( Id. at p. 574) Therefore, w e reasoned , strik ing the term from the order was not necessary and we declined to do so . ( Id. at p. 574, fn. 2.)
Two years later

, another appellate court de cided In re Matthew A. (2008)

165 Cal. App.4th 537 . Noting that juvenile courts were continuing to specify maximum

terms for minors who remained with their parents, and c oncluding that prior appellate
opinions had been ineffective in deterring the practice , the appellate court struck the

maximum confinement term from the order . ( I d

. at pp. 541

- 542 )

We observe that th e erroneous inclusion of maximum terms continues, and the
debate on appeal whether “to strike or not to strike” r ages on, although generally in
unpublished opinions. Our decision in Ali A. has provided the basis for the continuing

debate . T his was never our intention.3

T he legal reasoning employed in Ali A

. remains sound. However, the error of

incl uding maximum terms i n non

- custodial orders continues , unnecessarily depleting the
limited resources of the judicial system

. To stop this er ror , and quell the debate over its

effect

, w e now conclude that where a juvenile court’s order includes a maximum

confinement term for a minor who is not remo ved from parental custody, the remedy is to

strike the term.

DISPOSITION

The maximum confinement term is stricken from the juvenile court’s order . In all
other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

DUARTE , J.

We concur:

HUL L , Acting P. J.

HOCH , J.