People v. A.E. CA4/1

Filed 8/19/24 P. v. A.E. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083252

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. J244924)

A.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and A. Natasha Cortina, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION A.E. was arrested on March 27, 2023, at around 9:00 p.m. and then booked into custody in juvenile hall. The trial court found A.E. guilty of

robbery. At sentencing, the court adopted probation’s recommendations and awarded A.E. 28 days of predisposition custody credits based on a March 28 booking date, as reflected in the probation report. A.E. contends the court erred by miscalculating his custody credits because the court did not include March 27 towards his time in custody. We resolve this matter by memorandum opinion and affirm. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851-854.) “[A] minor is entitled to credit against his or her maximum term of confinement for the time spent in custody before the disposition hearing.” (In re Emilio C. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067 (Emilio C.).) A minor’s predisposition credits are calculated the same way as for adults under Penal Code section 2900.5. (In re Antwon R. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 348, 352 (Antwon R.).) Under section 2900.5(a), presentence credits are calculated from the day a person is booked into custody at a detention facility and does not include time spent in police custody prior to booking. (People v. Macklem (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 674, 702.) Calculation of custody credits may be raised for the first time, as the sole issue, on appeal in juvenile cases. (Antwon R., 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 350.) A.E. first argues the trial court improperly delegated its duty to calculate custody credits to the probation department by relying on the probation report. “It is the juvenile court’s duty to calculate the number of days earned, and the court may not delegate that duty.” (Emilio C., 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 1067.) “The purpose of a probation report is to assist the sentencing court in determining an appropriate disposition.” (People v. Municipal Court (Lopez) (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 456, 459.) In In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1111 (John H.), the court improperly delegated its duty