In re D.M.
Filed 1/10/13 In re D.M.
CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re D.M., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
D.M.,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E056295
(Super.Ct.No.
RIJ1101043)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of
County. Roger A. Luebs,
Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Sheila Quinlan,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris,
Attorney General, and A. Natasha Cortina and Annie Featherman Fraser, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, D.M.,
admitted to several wardship violations and was placed at Twin Pines
Ranch. On appeal, he contends the
juvenile court failed to calculate his predisposition custody credits. The People agree. For the reasons set forth below, we remand
this case for the juvenile court to calculate D.M.’s predisposition custody
credits. In all other respects,
disposition of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedure
On August 3, 2011, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed
alleging D.M., a minor, possessed
methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
(Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11377, subd. (a), 11364.) On September 27, 2011, a new petition was filed alleging D.M. committed automobile theft
(Pen. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), battery (Pen. Code, § 242),
brandished a firearm (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(1)), and made a criminal
threat (Pen. Code, § 422).
On October 13, 2011, D.M. admitted the allegation that he possessed methamphetamine and
committed automobile theft and battery. The maximum term of confinement was three
years ten months, and D.M. had 18 days of custody credit. D.M. was committed to juvenile hall for 18 to
36 days, and given credit for time served.
On November 17, 2011, another petition was filed alleging D.M. possessed
methamphetamine, possessed paraphernalia, and was under the influence of a
controlled substance. (Health & Saf.
Code, §§ 11377, subd. (a), 11364, 11550.)
On November
18, 2011, D.M. admitted the allegation that
he possessed methamphetamine. He also
admitted he violated the terms and conditions of his wardship. The court committed him to juvenile hall for
45 to 90 days. The maximum term of
confinement was four years six months, and D.M. had three days of custody
credits.
On January 20, 2012, D.M. was notified that he violated his wardship by testing
positive for drugs. D.M. admitted the
violation. The court referred him to be
screened by a treatment program called Wraparound.
On February 21, 2012, a subsequent petition was filed alleging D.M. possessed marijuana
on school grounds. (Health & Saf.
Code, §11357, subd. (e).) D.M. admitted
the allegation. D.M. was ordered to
cooperate with the Wraparound program, and to be committed to juvenile hall for
35 to 70 days. The maximum term of
confinement was four years six months, and D.M. had 35 days of custody credit.
On April 10, 2012,
D.M. was notified that he violated conditions of his wardship in that he left
home without permission, used methamphetamine, failed to comply with all
aspects of the Wraparound program, failed to meet with his probation officer,
failed to attend school, and left home without permission. On April 16, 2012,
D.M. admitted the wardship violations.
The maximum term of confinement was four years six months. The court ordered D.M. to be placed in a
suitable foster, group home, relative home, county facility, or private
facility. On April 20, 2012, D.M. was placed at Twin Pines Ranch. He filed a timely
Discussion
D.M. claims, and the People agree, that the juvenile
court failed to determine D.M.’s predisposition custody credits.
“[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.â€
(In re Emilio C. (2004) 116
Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067.)
Here, the juvenile court imposed an aggregate maximum
period of confinement of four years six months.
However, the court did not calculate D.M.’s predisposition custody
credits. Therefore, we agree with the
parties that the case should be remanded for the juvenile court to determine
D.M.’s predisposition custody credits.
Disposition
The matter is remanded to the juvenile court with
directions to determine D.M.’s predisposition custody credits. In all other respects, the judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.
J.
We concur:
RICHLI
J.
KING
J.
