People v. Fausto S.

Opinion

GATES, J.

—Fausto S. appeals from the order continuing his wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) following a finding that he had committed a battery, was engaged in disorderly conduct and had been under the influence of phencyclidine. (Pen. Code, §§ 242; 647, subd. (f); Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (b).) He contends: “I. The court committed the minor to camp for a time period in excess of that allowed by law. II. The trial court should have given the minor pre-commitment time credits for the time spent in juvenile hall and/or camp.”

1

[911]

At appellant’s August 23, 1984 disposition hearing, the court directed that a previous camp community placement order entered on July 31, 1984, should remain in full force and effect. It also declared that the present Health and Safety Code violation carried a one-year maximum period of confinement, with six months additional for the two remaining misdemeanors computed consecutively, for a total of twenty-four months. It indicated, however, these abstract time spans should be regarded as “concurrent” to any potential period of confinement remaining upon the earlier and unrelated camp commitment.

Although, as usual, a moot point, it appears that our Supreme Court would regard as technically correct appellant’s contention that error occurred in the computation of the theoretical maximum period he might have been confined.

2

(See

In re Deborah C.

(1981) 30 Cal.3d 125, 140 [177 Cal.Rptr. 852, 635 P.2d 446].) Perhaps the trial court shared our reservations concerning the undisclosed reasoning which lead to

Deborah C.'s

enigmatic reference to “the maximum term of adult confinement for the same offenses . . . .” As pointed out in

People

v.

Powell