Opinion
H042394
01-04-2017
IN RE B.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B.R., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 3-15-JV-41060A)
Defendant B.R. (minor) admitted one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), as alleged in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. Minor was declared a ward of the court and, after a contested disposition hearing, was ordered to spend between six and eight months in the Santa Clara County Juvenile Rehabilitation Facilities, Enhanced Ranch Program (Enhanced Ranch Program) followed by a period of probation in his parents' custody. Upon minor's timely appeal, we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appellate counsel filed a brief stating the case and facts but raising no issues. We notified minor of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf and received no response.
We have reviewed the entire record to determine if there are any arguable appellate issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440-441.) We include here a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, and the conviction and punishment imposed. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.) Finding no arguable issue, we will modify the disposition order regarding presentence custody credit and affirm the disposition order as modified.
I. JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS
The following factual summary is based on minor's probation report and a victim impact statement attached to that report. In January 2015, minor (who was 16 years old at the time) and a friend went to a house in Morgan Hill to smoke marijuana with a third boy, A.S. A.S. lived at the house with his parents, but he was alone when minor and his friend arrived. Minor's friend knew A.S. A.S. was roughly two years younger than minor.
After about two hours at the house, minor forced A.S. into a corner of his bedroom and tied his hands behind his back with a shoelace. Minor then led A.S. around the house so that minor could steal jewelry, electronics, and a knife. At some point, minor brandished the stolen knife and threatened both A.S. and minor's friend, saying he would hurt them if they tried to do anything.
An anonymous juvenile later reported to police that minor had used a mobile phone app to send the juvenile a photograph of a diamond ring matching the description of a wedding ring taken during the burglary. When confronted with that information during a police interview, minor admitted taking a photograph of the ring and posting it online. Minor was detained and taken to juvenile hall on January 24, 2015.
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed, alleging one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) with an enhancement for personally using a deadly or dangerous weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Minor admitted the burglary count and the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the enhancement. Minor was informed that the maximum term of confinement for his offense was five years. Based on minor's admission, the petition was sustained.
At a contested disposition hearing, minor's counsel argued for an alternative to the Enhanced Ranch Program that would allow minor to remain in his parents' custody. After hearing statements from minor's family and the father of A.S., the juvenile court adopted the probation department's recommendations with minor modifications. The juvenile court ordered minor to spend six to eight months in the Enhanced Ranch Program. Upon successful completion of the Enhanced Ranch Program, the adopted recommendations provided that minor was to "be returned to the custody of the parents on Probation ... under the supervision of the Probation Officer." The juvenile court reserved jurisdiction to order victim restitution and ordered minor's parents to pay $250 in attorney's fees. Minor received 70 days presentence custody credit.
We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue. We have found, however, that minor is entitled to additional presentence custody credit. Minor was detained on January 24, 2015 and remained in custody until the disposition hearing on April 21, 2015, a period of 87 days. But minor was awarded only 70 days presentence custody credit, apparently calculated based on the period between when minor was detained and when the probation report was completed. We will therefore modify the disposition order to provide 87 days presentence custody credit. (In re Emilio C. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067 ["[A] minor is entitled to credit against his or her maximum term of confinement for the time spent in custody before the disposition hearing."], citing Pen. Code § 2900.5, subd. (a).)
II. DISPOSITION
The disposition order is modified to reflect 87 days presentence custody credit. As so modified, the disposition order is affirmed.
/s/_________
Grover, J.
WE CONCUR:
/s/_________
Rushing, P.J. /s/_________
Premo, J.