In re William H.

Filed 8/19/08 In re William H. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephanie M. Davis, Juvenile Court Referee. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI,  21.) Remanded with directions.

Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., and Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________-

William H. (the minor) appeals from the order declaring him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (section 602) as a result of his having committed a second degree robbery.^[1] He contends, and the People concede, that the matter should be remanded to the juvenile court for recalculation of the minors predisposition credits. We agree.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2005, a section 602 petition was filed alleging the minor committed a second degree robbery and grand theft. The minor admitted the grand theft charge and he was placed on probation in home of parent. The terms of that probation included that the minor attend school every day and that he not associate with anyone belonging to a gang. The juvenile court specified that the maximum term of confinement for grand theft was three years and found the minor had 22 days of predisposition custody credit.

On April 12, 2006, the minor was taken into custody for vandalizing Paramount High School. He was not detained.

On April 18, 2006, the minor admitted violating the attend school condition of his probation by being suspended from school. The juvenile court dismissed the prior home on probation order and committed the minor to the Camp Community Placement Program for three months. The juvenile court specified that the maximum term of confinement remained three years and found the minor had six days of predisposition custody credit.

On June 12, 2006, a second section 602 petition was filed alleging the minor vandalized Paramount High School on April 12, 2006. On June 30, 2006, the minor admitted the petition. The juvenile court specified that the maximum term of confinement on this charge was one year. It ordered the minor to complete the prior camp placement (which was set to end on July 13, 2006) without any more time added.

On July 13, 2006, the Camp Community Placement order was terminated and minor was ordered home on probation. But the record on appeal seems to indicate that the minor was not released from camp until a week later, on July 20, 2006.

On November 17, 2006, the minor was arrested in Long Beach for second degree robbery.

On November 22, 2006, the district attorney filed a notice of probation violation and request for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 (section 777) hearing. According to the supporting declaration, the violations occurred on November 17, 2006, and included conspiracy to commit robbery and associating with known gang members. Although the district attorney requested that the minor be detained pending the hearing, it is unclear from the minute order whether, pending the probation violation hearing on December 13, 2006, the juvenile court ordered the minor to remain home of parent or ordered him detained.

In addition to the section 777 petition filed in Inglewood, on December 12, 2006, a third section 602 petition was filed in the Long Beach juvenile court (Department 245) alleging the minor committed a second degree robbery on November 17, 2006.^[2] That same day, the Long Beach juvenile court ordered the minors custody transferred to the probation department.

On December 13, 2006, in the Inglewood juvenile court, the minor admitted violating the condition of his probation prohibiting him from associating with known gang members. The Inglewood juvenile court ordered the minor committed to the Camp Community Placement Program for nine months. But after it came to the juvenile courts attention that a section 602 petition charging the minor with the robbery that was the source of the probation violation was still pending in Long Beach, the Inglewood juvenile court continued the disposition hearing to January 8, 2007, after the date set for the section 602 hearing in Long Beach. At this hearing, the Inglewood juvenile court made no findings as to predisposition custody credits.

On January 2, 2007, the minor appeared in the Long Beach juvenile court and admitted the second degree robbery allegation of the third section 602 petition. The Long Beach juvenile court found the minors maximum term of confinement was five years eight months, but continued the matter for disposition on January 8, 2007, in the Inglewood juvenile court. Pending the disposition hearing, the minor was ordered detained at juvenile hall. After discussing whether the minor had 46 days of predisposition custody credit as a result of his arrest on November 16, 2006, or whether the minor was already in custody on some other matter, the Long Beach juvenile court left the calculation of predisposition custody credits to the Inglewood juvenile court, noting that the Long Beach case had not been filed until December 12, 2006, [s]o you wouldnt have any more credits on this case other than from that date on.

On February 8, 2007, the Inglewood juvenile court rescinded its December 13, 2006, nine-month Camp Community Placement order. Instead, it ordered the minor committed to the Camp Community Placement Program for six months. It found the minors aggregate maximum commitment time on all three sustained petitions to be six years, calculated as follows:

        Five years on the petition dated December 12, 2006 (second degree robbery), as the base term;

        four months on the petition dated June 12, 2006 (vandalism); and

        eight months on the petition dated July 7, 2005 (grand theft).

The Inglewood juvenile court found that the minor had 83 days of predisposition custody credit including from his arrest on November 17, 2006, through the date of the hearing on February 8, 2007. Thus, it did not include in this calculation any predisposition custody credits attributable to the prior sustained petitions.

The minor filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Predisposition Credits

The minor and the People agree that the juvenile court miscalculated the minors predisposition custody credits. We agree.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (c) directs that an order removing a minor from the custody of his or her parents shall specify that the minor may not be confined for a period longer than the maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed on an adult convicted of the same offense. (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.795.) If the court elects to aggregate the period of physical confinement on multiple counts or multiple petitions, including previously sustained petitions adjudging the minor a ward within Section 602, the maximum term of imprisonment shall be the aggregate term of imprisonment specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1170.1 of the Penal Code . . . . (Welf. & Inst. Code,  726, subd. (c).)

Minors are entitled to predisposition custody credits against the maximum term of confinement. (In re Emilio C. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067 (Emilio C.).) It is the juvenile courts duty to calculate the predisposition custody credits. (Ibid.) And when the juvenile court elects to aggregate the minors physical confinement on multiple petitions, the court must also aggregate the predisposition custody credits attributable to those multiple petitions. (Ibid.)

Here, the juvenile court elected to aggregate the minors periods of confinement on the July 7, 2005; June 12, 2006; and December 12, 2006 sustained petitions. It did not, however, aggregate the predisposition custody credits attributable to those three petitions. This was error.

Because there is insufficient information in the record on appeal for this court to calculate the proper amount of predisposition custody credits, we remand to the juvenile court to do so taking into account predisposition credits the minor accrued pursuant to all three sustained petitions. (Emilio C., supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068.)

DISPOSITION

The matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to calculate the amount of predisposition custody credit to which the minor is entitled pursuant to all three sustained petitions.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

COOPER, P. J.

FLIER, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] This was the third of three section 602 petitions filed against the minor: July 7, 2005 (grand theft); June 12, 2006 (vandalism); and December 12, 2006 (second degree robbery). The conduct underlying the second two petitions occurred while the minor was still on probation and thus resulted in probation violations as well as new petitions.

^[2] All of the prior hearings had been in the Inglewood juvenile court (Department 241).