In re Daniel F. — Fear Not Law

In re Daniel F. Filed 9/27/06 In re Daniel F. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="319" valign="top"> In re DANIEL F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. </td> <td width="319" valign="top"> B188654 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PJ37053) </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="319" valign="top"> THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL F., Defendant and Appellant. </td> <td width="319" valign="top"> </td> </tr> </table> APPEAL from an order of the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Superior Court of Los Angeles County</a>, S. Robert Ambrose, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed as modified. Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Attorney</a> General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Steven D. Matthews, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ INTRODUCTION Daniel F. appeals from an order which ordered him to remain a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (section 602) and placed him in the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">camp-community placement program</a>. He contends that he is entitled to an additional day of credit against the maximum time he may be held in <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">physical confinement</a>. We agree and modify the order accordingly. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 18, 2005, a petition was filed under section 602 charging appellant with <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle</a> (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). On October 20, 2005, a second section 602 petition was filed, charging appellant with <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">second degree robbery</a> (Pen. Code, § 211), during which a principal was armed with a firearm (id., § 12022, subd. (a)(1)). On November 14, 2005, appellant admitted the charges in both petitions. He was declared to be a ward of the court and placed home on probation. The court declared his maximum period of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">physical confinement</a> to be five years and eight months. It gave him <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">predisposition custody credit</a> of 25 days. A third section 602 petition was filed on December 23, 2005, charging appellant with attempted <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">second degree robbery</a> (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664). Following a hearing on January 17, 2006, the court found the charge to be true and ordered appellant into the camp-community placement program. It ordered that he not be held in physical confinement for a period exceeding six years and four months. It gave him predisposition credit for 52 days in custody. DISCUSSION Appellant contends--and the People agree--that he is entitled to one additional day of predisposition credit. He was given 25 days’ credit on November 14, 2005, when the first two petitions were sustained. He was arrested and detained on December 21, 2005. He remained detained until disposition of the third petition on January 17, 2006, a period of 28 days. (People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735 [appellant entitled to custody credit from date of arrest through date of sentencing].) Inasmuch as his maximum period of <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">physical confinement</a> was based on the charges in all three petitions, he was entitled to predisposition credit attributable to the three as well--a total of 53 days. (In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 533-536; In re Emilio C. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067-1068.) The January 17, 2006 minute order is modified to provide appellant with 53 days of predisposition custody credit. As so modified, the order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED JACKSON, J.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> We concur: MALLANO, Acting P. J. VOGEL, J. Publication courtesy of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">California pro bono legal advice</a>. Analysis and review provided by <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">La Mesa Property line Lawyers.</a> <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.