In re D.L. CA2/6

Filed 7/19/22 In re D.L. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.L., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B312279 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. MJ24220) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

D.L. appeals from the judgment entered after the juvenile court found true a petition’s allegations that he had committed the following crimes: count 2 – attempted murder with personal discharge of a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (c));1 count 3 – second degree robbery with personal use of a firearm (§§ 211, 212.5, 12022.5, subd. (a)); and

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

count 7 – another second degree robbery during which a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). G.T. was the victim in counts 2 and 3. Count 7 named a different victim. In an earlier, separately filed petition, the court found true an allegation that appellant had committed felony vandalism (§ 594). At the disposition hearing on both petitions, the juvenile court ordered appellant to be “placed at Dorothy [S.] Kirby Center for a minimum of one year.” The court set appellant’s maximum term of confinement at 31 years, including 27 years on count 2 (attempted murder) plus a consecutive two-year term on count 3 (robbery). Appellant contends that section 654 prohibits punishment on both counts 2 and 3 because “the facts . . . establish that [he] must have had one, single intent in carrying out” the crimes against G.T. In addition, appellant claims that the juvenile court erroneously failed to award predisposition custody credit for the time he had spent at home in an electronic monitoring program. We affirm. Facts Underlying Counts 2 and 3 G.T. was working at a smoke shop. Appellant and another male entered the store. Appellant “ran fast” toward G.T. Appellant “was holding [a] firearm with his right hand brandishing the weapon.” He pointed the gun at G.T.’s chest and said, “‘Open the register. Give me the money.’” Appellant fired the gun. The bullet missed G.T. by about two inches. G.T. opened the cash register, and appellant’s accomplice began taking money from the register. The accomplice told appellant not to fire the gun again because G.T. had opened the register. But appellant “tried to shoot [G.T.] one more time.” He