(Super. Ct. No. 10JDSQ2597011)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant B.F. appeals from a juvenile court order committing him to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), a division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He contends (1) the juvenile court lacked authority to commit him to DJJ because his crime was not enumerated in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b), and (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to DJJ.*fn1
After briefing was completed in this case, the California Supreme Court decided In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94 (In re C.H.), resolving the issue presented in defendant's first contention here. Based on the Supreme Court's decision, we agree with defendant that the juvenile court lacked authority to commit him to DJJ because defendant was not adjudged to have committed an offense enumerated in section 707, subdivision (b). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address defendant's second contention.
We will reverse the juvenile court's commitment order and remand for further proceedings regarding placement.
Defendant was born in 1994. When he was 11 years old he committed a lewd and lascivious act upon or with an eight-year-old boy. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) The juvenile court declared defendant a ward of the court and placed him on probation, but defendant repeatedly violated the conditions of his probation. Defendant was placed in a series of group homes or programs, and his conduct resulted in the termination of his most recent placement.
Ultimately, the People petitioned to commit defendant to DJJ. Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court found that no alternate service was available to defendant, that defendant was a danger to himself and the community, and that defendant would benefit from the reformatory discipline or other treatment provided by DJJ.
The juvenile court ordered defendant committed to DJJ for the maximum term of confinement of eight years, less credit for days served, based on defendant's violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). The juvenile court recognized that defendant did not commit an offense enumerated in section 707, subdivision (b). Nonetheless, the juvenile court determined that, pursuant to former section 733, subdivision (c), defendant could be committed to DJJ because his offense is described in Penal Code section 290.008.
Defendant contends the juvenile court lacked authority to commit him to DJJ because his crime -- a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) -- was not enumerated in section 707, subdivision (b). We agree.
At the time of the dispositional hearing, section 731, subdivision (a)(4) provided that the juvenile court could commit a ward to DJJ if the ward committed an offense described in section 707, subdivision (b), and if the ward was not otherwise ineligible for commitment to DJJ under section 733. (Stats. 2007, ch. 257, § 2, p. 2814.) Penal Code section 288, ...