From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Maurice H.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
May 29, 2007
No. A114822 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 29, 2007)

Opinion


In re MAURICE H., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE H., Defendant and Appellant. A114822 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division May 29, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Alameda County v. Super. Ct. No. J187810

Jones, P.J.

Maurice H. appeals from a disposition removing him from his mother’s custody. In his opening brief, he argued the court miscalculated his maximum term of confinement, and miscalculated his custody credits. On consideration of the People’s brief in response disputing the first argument, appellant conceded the court calculated the maximum term of his confinement correctly. We agree there is no error on this ground. With regard to the custody credits, we agree with the parties and order the appropriate modification.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2005, appellant got into an argument with a man named Tom Williams while at a family celebration. Appellant grabbed a brick and hit Williams in the head. Appellant then walked up to Williams and hit him in the collar bone. Williams was hospitalized for several weeks suffering from a broken collar bone, sinus fractures, and a laceration above his left eye.

Based on these facts, a subsequent petition was filed alleging appellant continued to come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he committed a felony assault. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) The petition alleged, as an enhancement, that appellant had inflicted great bodily injury during the assault. (Pen. Code, § 12022.7.) In addition, the petition alleged that when determining what disposition was appropriate, the court should consider that appellant had prior sustained findings for burglary and carrying a concealed weapon.

The case proceeded to a jurisdictional hearing where the court found the assault allegation and the great bodily injury enhancement to be true. At disposition, the court ordered that appellant be removed from his mother’s custody and placed with the appropriate authorities. The court ruled appellant’s maximum time of confinement was eight years.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Custody Credits

The juvenile court awarded appellant 101 days of credit for time served. Appellant contends the court calculated his credits incorrectly and that it should have awarded him credit for 163 days. The People concede the error and we agree. We order the appropriate modification.

III. DISPOSITION

The juvenile court is ordered to prepare and to forward to the appropriate authorities an amended disposition showing that appellant is entitled to 163 days of credit for time served. In all other respects, the disposition is affirmed.

We concur: Simons, J., Gemello, J.


Summaries of

In re Maurice H.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
May 29, 2007
No. A114822 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 29, 2007)
Case details for

In re Maurice H.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE H., Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

Date published: May 29, 2007

Citations

No. A114822 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 29, 2007)