In re John H.

23 Citing cases

  1. People v. A.E.

    No. D083252 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2024)

    (People v. Municipal Court (Lopez) (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 456, 459.) In In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1111 (John H.), the court improperly delegated its duty to calculate predisposition credits because "the court initially awarded 36 days of credit but then retracted that finding and stated the Probation Department or CYA would calculate the final figure." Here, unlike John H., the court did not make an order delegating the calculation of custody credits to probation, rather it made an informed decision and accepted the recommendations in the probation report.

  2. In re Antwon R.

    87 Cal.App.4th 348 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 68 times
    In Antwon itself, the appellate court suggested that it would have calculated the credit itself if it had been provided with โ€œenough information, โ€ but since the record was incomplete the court remanded the matter to the trial court.

    , In re Pedro M. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 550, 556) or "predisposition" custody credit (see, e.g., In re Randy J., supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1500-1501; In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1111). Finally, Penal Code sections 1235, 1237, 1237.1 and 1237.5 are all found under Title 9 of the Penal Code. Penal Code section 1235 provides: "Either party to a felony case may appeal on questions of law alone. . . . The provisions of this title apply only to such appeals."

  3. In re Walters

    39 Cal.App.4th 1546 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 10 times
    Ordering trial court to terminate probation

    The Attorney General relies on cases which hold that the failure to object to trial court action taken in violation of statutory provisions forfeits the right to challenge such action on appeal. ( People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638, 853 P.2d 1093] [failure to object to trial court's erroneous discharge of jury prior to jury's determination of truth of prior conviction allegations]; People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 237 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520, 851 P.2d 802] [failure to object to probation conditions]; People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1029 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861] [failure to object to fine]; In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1112 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 25] [same].)Saunders and Welch both explain the purpose of finding a forfeiture from the failure to object is to encourage the parties to give the trial court the opportunity to correct the error. ( People v. Saunders, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 590; People v. Welch, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 235.)

  4. In re Randy J.

    22 Cal.App.4th 1497 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 56 times
    Affirming denial of pre-disposition custody credits for non-secure placement at Rite of Passage program located in Nevada

    This holding, however, is not authority for wholesale incorporation of Penal Code section 2900.5 into section 726; it is simply another interpretation of the expression "maximum period of confinement which could be imposed upon an adult" in a context not otherwise addressed by section 726 He also cites our decision of In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1111 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 25], in which we included a citation to Penal Code section 2900.5 along with one to In re Eric J., supra, 25 Cal.3d 522. That decision, however, was limited to the issue of the juvenile court's failure to calculate the minor's custody credit and in no way involved the question of the applicability of the adult statute to minors. Cases are not authority for propositions not explicitly considered.

  5. Charry v. California

    13 F.3d 1386 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 3 times
    Observing that juvenile "received the maximum sentence, i.e. five years for robbery . . . was committed to the [Youth Authority]" and generally discussing "sentence" served by juvenile in Youth Authority custody

    ]" Cal. Welf. Inst. Code ยง 1766(b) (emphasis added).See also In re John H., 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 26 (1992) ("The CYA may not confine a juvenile longer than the period for which an adult could be imprisoned for the same offenses which the juvenile committed." (emphasis added)).

  6. People v. Vorsatz

    No. A156428 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2020)

    "It is the court's duty to calculate the number of days earned and the court may not delegate that duty." (In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1111; Pen. Code, ยง 2900.5, subd. (d); People v. Vargas (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1455, 1469, fn. 9.) Respondent argues appellant forfeited this argument by failing to object in the trial court, citing People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353-357 [failure to object forfeits challenges to discretionary sentencing decisions], and People v. Guillen (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 756, 764 [error in calculating presentence credit involving fact determination or exercise of discretion must be raised in trial court; purely arithmetic error can be corrected on appeal for efficiency].

  7. In re B.R.

    No. A149819 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2017)

    The cases relied upon by the People stand for the proposition that a defendant forfeits a challenge to a discretionary sentencing decision when the failure to object prevents the development of a factual record to support the decision. (See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353; In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1112-1113.) The concern is that judicial resources will otherwise be spent correcting errors that could have been easily prevented if brought to the lower court's attention.

  8. People v. Howard

    H042729 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2017)

    But because the court was authorized to impose a $200 restitution fine, Howard's failure to object constitutes a waiver. (See In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1112 [court was authorized to impose both restitution and restitution fine where the fine was less than the maximum amount].) For the same reasons, the imposition of the $200 restitution did not violate Howard's right to a jury trial under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466. A defendant only has the right to a jury finding regarding "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum."

  9. People v. Jaime

    F068904 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2015)

    A trial court may not delegate the duty to calculate and award credits. (In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1111; People v. Vargas (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1455, 1469 & fn. 9.) Appellate counsel obtained a correction to the sentencing order to reflect the award of custody credits and the amended sentencing order was prepared and filed.

  10. In re A.O.

    No. A141710 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2015)

    (In re Julian R. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 487, 495.) Finally, the court must credit against the term of confinement time the minor spent in custody before the disposition hearing. (In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1111.) "It is the juvenile court's duty to calculate the number of days earned, and the court may not delegate that duty."