In re D.L. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a disposition order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. JCM239786
- Trial judge
- Tilisha Martin
- Outcome
- reversed in part — Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court established a maximum custody period of two years for the current offenses and 17 years for accumulated adjudications, but failed to address custody credits at the disposition hearing. The appellate court reversed in part and remanded with directions to recalculate the maximum custody term and credits in light of recent statutory changes.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Calculation of maximum custody term for current offenses and accumulated adjudications“The parties agree the court miscalculated the term for the current offense. Given that count 3 was stayed under section 654, the term should only be 20 months.” | unclear | error | agree with court agree with court |
Failure to address custody credits at disposition“The disposition hearing did not address either the maximum custody terms or the appropriate custody credits.” | unclear | error | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: In re Edward B. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1228 — The court can address the issue of the proper calculation of custody credits at the time of remand.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the statutory changes from Senate Bill 92 and the procedural error of not addressing credits, relying on the parties' concession and established case law. It reaches a defensible result by remanding for recalculation rather than attempting to calculate the new terms itself.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition on five firearm-related counts and set the maximum custody period at two years for the current offenses and 17 years for the aggregated prior adjudications, without addressing custody credits at disposition. On appeal the Attorney General conceded error, and the Court of Appeal reversed the disposition order as to the maximum custody terms and custody credits, remanding for recalculation under amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, while affirming in all other respects.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Setting the maximum custody term for the current offenses at two years despite count 3 being stayed under Penal Code section 654“The parties agree the court miscalculated the term for the current offense. Given that count 3 was stayed under section 654, the term should only be 20 months.” | de novo | error (law misapplied) | agree with court A term stayed under section 654 cannot be counted toward the maximum period of confinement, so the two-year figure overstated the term; the court does not state a standard but the calculation is a legal question and the concession was properly accepted. |
Setting the aggregate maximum custody term for the current and prior adjudications at 17 years“Among other things, the statute now limits the term for juvenile confinement to not exceed the middle term of imprisonment for the offense.” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court Senate Bill No. 92 amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 to cap juvenile confinement at the middle term, and the minor's case was not final on appeal, so remand to recalculate under the amended statute is the correct course; the opinion does not spell out the retroactivity analysis but the result follows from the concession and the statutory change. |
Failure to calculate and award custody credits at the disposition hearing“The court can also address the issue of the proper calculation of custody credits at that time.” | unclear | error (procedure) | agree with court The juvenile court must calculate predisposition custody credits, and the opinion properly directs that this be done on remand, citing In re Edward B.; the opinion's reasoning is minimal but the direction is consistent with that authority. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Edward B. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1228 — The juvenile court is responsible for calculating and awarding a minor's custody credits, and the matter may be remanded for that calculation.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion reaches a defensible result by accepting a well-founded concession that the current-offense term ignored a section 654 stay and that amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 governs the aggregate term and custody credits. It skips any explanation of why the amended statute applies retroactively to this nonfinal case and does not analyze the 17-year figure itself, leaving all substantive work to the juvenile court on remand.
Opinion
Filed 5/25/22 In re D.L. CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re D.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D079308 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM239786)
v. D.L., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a disposition order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Tilisha Martin, Judge. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions. Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christine Y. Friedman, and Eric A. Swenson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. This is an appeal from a disposition order in the juvenile court. D.L. (the Minor) contends the court erred in calculating the maximum potential custody for the instant case and the multiple prior adjudications the minor has accumulated. The Attorney General correctly agrees and concedes the case must be remanded to the juvenile court to correct the errors and to consider recent statutory changes in the rules for calculation of maximum custody in juvenile cases. We will accept the Attorney General’s concession and remand. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Following an adjudication hearing, the Minor was found to have committed the following offenses as alleged in a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602: Count 1 minor in possession of a handgun (Pen. Code,1 § 29610); Count 2 unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29815); Count 3 possession of a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400); Count 4 minor in possession of ammunition (§ 29650); Count 5 possession of a firearm without a manufacturer’s number or other mark of identification (§ 23920). The court established the maximum custody period for the current offenses would be two years. The maximum period selected for the accumulated adjudications was set at 17 years. The disposition hearing did not address either the maximum custody terms or the appropriate custody credits. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal. The Minor does not challenge the adjudication of his offenses or the disposition; therefore, the facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the resolution of this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts. DISCUSSION 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 The parties agree the court miscalculated the term for the current offense. Given that count 3 was stayed under section 654, the term should only be 20 months. Further, recent legislation has changed the rules for calculating the maximum aggregate custody term for multiple offenses. Senate Bill No. 92, effective May 14, 2021, amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 on the calculation of terms. Among other things, the statute now limits the term for juvenile confinement to not exceed the middle term of imprisonment for the offense. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (d)(3).) The parties agree that the Minor should have the opportunity to take any of the benefits of the statutory changes. The court can also address the issue of the proper calculation of custody credits at that time. (In re Edward B. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1228, 1238.) DISPOSITION The disposition order is reversed to the extent it incorporates the maximum custody terms and custody credits, which were calculated at the adjudication hearing. The case is remanded with directions to recalculate the 3 maximum custody term and the appropriate custody credits and to amend the order appropriately. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Edward B. A148887 · 2017-03-21