In re Elijah S. CA1/4

Filed 9/12/14 In re Elijah S. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re Elijah S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELIJAH S., A140145 Defendant and Appellant. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J13-00815)

On July 29, 2013, the Contra Costa District Attorney (District Attorney) filed a delinquency petition pursuant to section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (Section 602), alleging that Elijah S., a minor, had committed misdemeanor petty theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 488) (Count 1) and engaged in misdemeanor public intoxication (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)) (Count 2).1 The charges stemmed from a May 14, 2013, incident in which the minor was detained by the police after attempting to steal two bottles of wine from a Safeway store in Pittsburg. At the time of his arrest, Elijah exhibited signs of intoxication, and preliminary screening indicated a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .122 percent. The minor was cited and released to the custody of his mother. On August 28, 2013, Elijah pled no contest to Count 1, and the petition was

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

1

sustained as to that count. Thereafter, Count 2 was dismissed, and the minor was placed on home supervision pending disposition. While this first matter was still ongoing, the police received a report on August 6, 2013, that two individuals were looking into car windows and checking the door handles of vehicles parked at the minor’s apartment complex in Concord. Later, upon questioning by the police, Elijah admitted that he had stolen several items from a parked car at the facility, including a wallet, credit cards, jewelry, and electronic devices. The minor reported planning to sell the stolen goods in order to buy “ ‘weed’ ” and alcohol. On September 25, 2013, the District Attorney filed a subsequent Section 602 petition alleging that the minor had engaged in two felonies in connection with this second incident: receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) and grand theft from a person (§ 487, subd. (c)). On October 3, 2013, the District Attorney corrected the grand theft count in the subsequent petition to allege grand theft in an amount over $950 rather than grand theft from a person. (§ 487, subd. (a).) On October 8, 2013, the petition was further amended to include three misdemeanor charges: second degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b)); theft in an amount over $950 (§ 487, subd. (a)); and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). On that same date, Elijah pled no contest to the three misdemeanor counts and the court dismissed the two felonies. Thereafter, on October 22, 2013, a dispositional hearing was held with respect to all four sustained misdemeanors at which Elijah was declared a juvenile court ward, removed from the custody of his mother, and ordered into out-of-home care. Elijah’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred by failing to calculate his maximum time of confinement (MTC) and his credits for time served on the record. He asks that the proceedings be remanded so that his MTC and secure custody credits can be determined by the juvenile court. The Attorney General concedes the error but asks that—rather than remanding the matter for further hearing—we simply order the juvenile court to prepare an amended dispositional order which specifies the correct MTC and notes the proper award of secure custody credits. We concur that the juvenile court