California Court of Appeal Jan 16, 2014 No. E059107Unpublished
Filed 1/16/14 In re B.L. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re B.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, E059107 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. RIJ1201097) v. OPINION B.L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Walter H. Kubelun,
Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed with directions.
Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel, and Stephanie H.
Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
On June 21, 2013, defendant B.L. (minor) admitted an allegation in a second
petition subsequent that he attempted criminal threats against a judge presiding over one
of his prior cases (¶ 1 – Pen. Code § 664/422).1 Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the
juvenile court ordered minor into an out-of-state placement and determined his maximum
period of confinement as six years two months. The juvenile court neglected to compute
an updated calculation of minor’s custody credits. On appeal, minor contends the court
(second petition subsequent ¶ 1 -- §§ 664/422). According to the formula prescribed
above, the maximum period of confinement to which minor could be sentenced would be
4
six years consisting of the following: five years for the robbery (§ 213, subd. (a)(2));
eight months, one-third the prescribed midterm of two years, for the felony second degree
burglary (§§ 461, subd. (b), 1170, subd. (h)); and four months, one-third the prescribed
term of 12 months for the felony attempted criminal threats (§§ 18, 664, subd. (b)/422,
subd. (a)). Thus, we shall direct the superior court to issue a corrected dispositional
minute order setting minor’s maximum confinement as six years.
B. Presentence Custody Credits.
Minor contends the court erred in awarding him only 55 days of presentence
credits when he was entitled to 73 days. The People concur. We agree.
“A juvenile is entitled to credit against his maximum period of physical
confinement for any time he spends in actual custody prior to disposition. [Citation.] . . .
The California Supreme Court has concluded that when a juvenile court elects to
aggregate a minor’s period of physical confinement on multiple petitions . . . the court
must also aggregate the predisposition custody credits attributable to those multiple
petitions. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Stephon L. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1231-
1232; In re Emilio C. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067.) “It is the juvenile court’s
duty to calculate the number of days earned, and the court may not delegate that duty.
[Citations.]” (Emilio C., supra, at p. 1067.)
Minor was initially arrested on January 16, 2013, and detained until February 20,
2013, when he left his placement, for a total of 36 days. He was arrested on May 22,
2013, and detained until his dispositional hearing on June 27, 2013, an additional 37
days. Thus, minor spent a total of 73 days in custody prior to the final dispositional
5
order. Therefore, we shall direct the juvenile court to correct the dispositional minute
order to reflect 73 days of presentence credits.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court is directed to correct the dispositional minute order dated June
27, 2013, to accurately reflect the maximum period of minor’s confinement, six years,
and presentence credits in the amount of 73 days and forward a corrected copy to the
appropriate authorities. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
HOLLENHORST J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the juvenile court erred in its calculation of the minor's maximum period of confinement and failed to properly calculate his presentence custody credits. The case was remanded with directions to issue a corrected dispositional minute order reflecting a six-year maximum confinement period and 73 days of custody credit.
Issues
Did the juvenile court err in calculating the minor's maximum period of confinement?
Did the juvenile court err in its calculation of the minor's presentence custody credits?
Disposition. Affirmed with directions
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We shall direct the juvenile court to issue a corrected dispositional minute order reflecting the correct maximum period of minor’s confinement and custody credits.”
“The juvenile court is directed to correct the dispositional minute order dated June 27, 2013, to accurately reflect the maximum period of minor’s confinement, six years, and presentence credits in the amount of 73 days”