In re T.G. CA3

Filed 5/14/24 In re T.G. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re T.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C098900 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV138965)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The juvenile court committed T.G. to the Valley Oak Youth Academy (VOYA), a secure youth treatment facility (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (a)),1 setting the baseline term of confinement at four years and the maximum term of confinement at seven years four months with 1,823 days of custody credit.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

T.G. now contends (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering a VOYA secure youth treatment facility commitment, (2) the juvenile court should have applied the custody credit to the baseline term of confinement, and (3) the disposition minute order must be corrected. We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing T.G. to VOYA. But we will remand the matter for recalculation of the baseline term of confinement, direct the juvenile court to correct the disposition minute order, and otherwise affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In 2017, the People filed a wardship petition alleging that T.G. (then 16 years old) stole a 2012 Nissan Altima and bought or received the same stolen car. T.G. admitted a misdemeanor violation in exchange for probation. The juvenile court approved the parties’ agreement and placed T.G. on probation for six months. In 2018, the People filed a wardship petition charging T.G. with murder and asserting a firearm enhancement allegation. The detention report indicated that T.G. and two adults chased the victim and shot him. A stolen nine-millimeter Glock was recovered at T.G.’s home and linked to the spent casings recovered near the victim’s body. The People moved under section 707 to have T.G. declared unfit for treatment within the juvenile justice system. T.G. admitted voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) with a firearm enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and agreed to a stipulated commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). In exchange, the People agreed not to seek transfer to adult criminal court. The juvenile court adjudged T.G. a ward of the court and committed him to DJJ with custody credit. A May 2021 annual DJJ case review recommended T.G.’s continued placement and confirmed his projected board of parole review date of June 2024. The report stated: “[T.G.] has not made any progress in addressing his primary treatment objectives this