In re X.T. CA2/6

Filed 11/25/20 In re X.T. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re X.T., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B299264 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. MJ23409) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

X.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A Juvenile Petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) alleged two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),1 one count of possessing a firearm by a minor (§ 29610), and one count of possessing live ammunition by a minor (§ 29650) against appellant X.T. Both robbery counts included three enhancements: (1) use of a deadly

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise noted.

or dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)); (2) use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); and (3) commission of a violent felony (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The petition included a determination of appellant’s ineligibility for deferred entry of judgment. Appellant denied the allegations. The juvenile court sustained the petition and committed appellant to the Department of Juvenile Facilities (“DJF”) in a disposition order dated June 26, 2019. It calculated his maximum period of confinement as 14 years and his maximum theoretical period of imprisonment as 32 years and 300 days. Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered him to DJF instead of a less restrictive alternative such as long-term camp commitment. He also contends it incorrectly calculated his predisposition custody credits and maximum terms of confinement and imprisonment. We affirm appellant’s commitment to DJF but remand the case for the limited purpose of recalculating appellant’s custody credits and term of confinement. BACKGROUND Appellant and another man entered Lonnell Grimes’s barber shop in Lancaster on the afternoon of May 1, 2018 and asked for haircuts. Grimes told them he did not accept walk-ins and planned to leave for the day once he finished the current customer’s haircut. One of the men asked for a business card. When Grimes turned around to retrieve a card, appellant held a gun to his neck and took his cash, wallet, and cell phones. The other man took $400 and a chain from customer Rodrick Reese. Reese’s two sons, ages 8 and 11, witnessed the robbery.