In re Edgar F.
Filed 2/25/13 In re Edgar F. CA2/7
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
SEVEN
In re EDGAR F., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B238235
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. FJ48105)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
EDGAR F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court
of
County, Robert J. Totten, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed as modified.
Sarvenaz
Bahar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel
Jr. and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________
Edgar F. appeals from the juvenile court’s order
continuing wardship and directing him into a six-month camp community placement
program. He contends the award of
predisposition custody credit was
miscalculated. We affirm the order as
modified.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In a
Code, § 602) filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney on November 19, 2010, it was alleged
then 15-year-old Edgar had possessed a weapon (a knife) on school grounds. On January
18, 2011, the juvenile court found it necessary to remove Edgar
from his home and ordered him detained in juvenile hall. On February
15, 2011, Edgar admitted the allegation, and the juvenile court
sustained the petition and released Edgar to his mother.
The San
Bernardino County District Attorney filed a delinquency petition on February 22, 2011 alleging Edgar
committed second degree burglary. Edgar
admitted the allegation, and the juvenile court sustained the petition,
declared the offense a misdemeanor and ordered Edgar detained in his mother’s
home pending transfer of the case from the San Bernardino Superior Court to the
Los Angeles County Superior Court.
On April 28, 2011, the Los
Angeles County
juvenile court accepted jurisdiction over the case, determined it was necessary
to remove Edgar from his home and ordered him detained in juvenile hall. On May
10, 2011, Edgar was released to the Community Detention Program.
The
petitions were consolidated for purposes of disposition on August 30, 2011.
At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared Edgar a ward of
the court, ordered him home on probation and awarded him one day of
predisposition custody credit.
After Edgar
slapped and kneed his girlfriend, the Los Angeles County District Attorney
filed another delinquency petition on October 26, 2011, alleging Edgar,
then 16 years old, had committed
battery on a person with whom he had a dating relationship.
Following a
contested jurisdiction hearing on December
6, 2011, the juvenile court found the allegation true beyond a
reasonable doubt and sustained the petition.
At the disposition hearing immediately following, the juvenile court
declared the offense a misdemeanor, ordered Edgar to remain a ward of the court
and directed him into the six-month camp community placement program. The court set the maximum physical
confinement period as three years six months, including the previously
sustained petitions, and awarded Edgar 40 days of predisposition
DISCUSSION
Edgar F.
contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the juvenile court erred in
calculating his predisposition custody credit as 40 days. We agree.
In a
juvenile delinquency proceeding, “a minor is entitled to credit against his or
her maximum term of confinement for the time spent in custody before the
disposition hearing. [Citations.] It is the juvenile court’s duty to calculate
the number of days earned, and the court may not delegate that duty.
[Citations.]†(In re Emilio C. (2005) 116 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067.) “[W]hen a juvenile court elects to aggregate
a minor’s period of physical confinement on multiple petitions . . ., the court
must also aggregate the predisposition custody credits attributable to those
multiple petitions.†(
“Physical confinement includes placement in juvenile hall.†(In re
J. M. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1256.)
Here, in
electing to aggregate Edgar’s physical confinement based on his multiple
petitions, the juvenile court neglected to also aggregate his predisposition
custody credit. With respect to the
November 19, 2010 and February 22, 2011 petitions, Edgar was in custody for a
total of 43 days prior to the disposition on August 30, 2011: He was detained and released on January 7,
2011 (1 day), detained in juvenile hall from January 18, 2011 to February 15,
2011 (29 days), and from April 28, 2011 to May 10, 2011 (13 days). With respect to his October 26, 2011
petition, Edgar was detained an additional 44 days from October 24, 2011 to
December 6, 2011. Accordingly, as the
parties agree, Edgar is entitled to an award of 87 days of predisposition custody
credit
DISPOSITION
The
December 6, 2011 minute order is corrected to award Edgar F. a total of 87 days
of predisposition custody credit. As
modified, the order is affirmed.
WOODS,
J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
JACKSON, J.
