People v. Maurice S.

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

Maurice S. appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court committing him to the Youth Authority upon findings that he was a person coming within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he took personal property from the possession and immediate presence of a victim (Pen. Code, § 211) and that he escaped from the juvenile hall (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 871).

Appellant and several other boys blocked the passage of the victim’s car by backing a car out into the street. When the victim’s car stopped, it was surrounded by the boys. Appellant forced his way partly into the car and seized the victim’s purse. Appellant was taken into custody within a few minutes and identified by the victim and other witnesses.

The allegation of escape from the juvenile hall was submitted on a stipulation that a custodial officer would testify that appellant “did escape from Cottage B3” on March 8.

Appellant points out, and the Attorney General has properly conceded, that the commitment to the Youth Authority issued by the court is erroneous in specifying consecutive terms of confinement. The findings and order actually set the period of confinement at not to exceed three years. The commitment must be amended to eliminate the error.

In a supplemental brief appellant contends that, under Penal Code section 2900.5, appellant is entitled to credit against his term of confinement for 37 days actually spent in custody and 18 days good time credit (see Pen. Code, § 4019;

People

v.

Doganiere

(1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 237 [150 Cal.Rptr. 61];

People

v. Brown

*

(Cal. App.)). The theoiy is that it is a denial of equal protection to withhold from a juvenile offender the benefit of provisions which have the effect of shortening the actual period of confinement of adult offenders (see

People

v.

Olivas

(1976) 17 Cal.3d 236 [131 Cal.Rptr. 55, 551 P.2d 375]). The Attorney General resists this contention, citing