In Re Dana G.

California Court of Appeal Feb 2, 1983 No. AO20446Published

Before: Caldecott

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A juvenile court may not aggregate a minor's term of commitment by including unserved custody time from prior wardships that have been terminated or dismissed.

Issues

Whether a juvenile court may include unserved custody time from prior terminated wardships when calculating the maximum term of commitment for a new offense.

Disposition. Granted

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Petitioner contends that her term of commitment cannot include unserved custody time from prior terminated wardships. We conclude that she is correct.”

“It is clear that this section permits the aggregation of all charges against a minor when the petitions or supplemental petitions containing these charges have not been dismissed.”

“If the juvenile court aggregated unspent time on petitions which had been dismissed, this latter requirement of the section would not be met.”

Opinion

CALDECOTT, P. J.

Petitioner, a minor who is confined in Ventura County, seeks immediate release from the California Youth Authority. Since there is no territorial limitation on the exercise of habeas corpus jurisdiction and since the attack is upon a judgment rendered in Contra Costa County, jurisdiction is appropriate in this court.

(Griggs

Superior Court

(1976) 16 Cal.3d 341, 346-347, 356 [128 Cal.Rptr. 223, 546 P.2d 727].)

On September 10, 1981, wardship proceedings were commenced in action No. 62264 by a petition under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,

[680]

charging petitioner with two misdemeanors—loitering and giving false information to a police officer—and two infractions—wilfully and unlawfully standing in a roadway and pedestrian running in front of vehicle. Petitioner admitted loitering and giving false information. She was committed to the California Youth Authority upon the filing of a supplemental petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section

111,

after previous less restrictive dispositions, one at home and one at St. Elizabeth’s Home for Girls in San Francisco.

Petitioner’s term of commitment was fixed at two years by adding to the term for the misdemeanor charge of giving false information, the unspent custody time from two prior wardships in action Nos. 58391 and 59527. Petitioner contends that her term of commitment cannot include unserved custody time from prior terminated wardships. We conclude that she is correct.

The Attorney General argues that Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 specifically provides for the procedure used here, citing the following portion of that section: “In any case in which the minor is removed from the physical custody of his parent or guardian as the result of an order of wardship made pursuant to Section 602, the order shall specify that the minor may not be held in physical confinement for a period in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the

In Re Dana G.

AI Brief

CALDECOTT, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief