In re C.C. CA2/8

Filed 7/16/24 In re C.C. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re C.C., a Person Coming B327833 Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE (Los Angeles County OF CALIFORNIA, Super. Ct. No. YJ40095)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an adjudication of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. J. Christopher Smith, Judge. Affirmed. Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ******

In February 2022, after a contested adjudication hearing, defendant and appellant C.C. was declared a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) On January 26, 2023, following C.C.’s arrest for possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 25850) and driving a car without the owner’s consent (Pen. Code, § 10851), the People filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 alleging C.C. was in violation of the terms of his probation. C.C. admitted the above two Penal Code allegations in count 1 of the petition, and the juvenile court dismissed the balance of the allegations in the interests of justice. At the March 21, 2023 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court committed C.C. to a secure youth treatment facility for a baseline term of two years with a maximum term of confinement of five years eight months (the original baseline term of three years was corrected to a two-year term). The court gave C.C. 419 days of precommitment custody credits applied to his maximum term of confinement. The court denied C.C.’s motion to apply his precommitment custody credits to the baseline term in accordance with In re Ernesto L. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 31 (Ernesto L.). C.C.’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in applying his precommitment custody credits to his maximum term of confinement instead of his two-year baseline term. The same arguments C.C. raises here were recently rejected in In re Jose R. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 839 (Jose R.). We agree with the analysis of Jose R. In 2020 and 2021, the Legislature passed several pieces of legislation aimed at juvenile justice realignment that resulted in the transfer of responsibility for minors who have been adjudged