Opinion
A101937.
11-20-2003
In re MICHAEL W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL W., Defendant and Appellant.
Michael W. appeals from his adjudication as a continued ward of the court and his out-of-home placement. Appellants court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
A supplemental petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777) filed in the Juvenile Division of Mendocino County Superior Court alleged that appellant, a previously adjudicated ward of the court pursuant to section 602, violated the courts prior orders by failing to obey school rules, properly attend school, and obey the reasonable directions of his parents.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The court previously sustained the allegation that appellant committed vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594), a misdemeanor.
Appellant admitted that he had unexcused absences from school and refused his parents direction to participate in psychiatric counseling.
The court adjudicated appellant a continued ward of the court pursuant to section 602. The court made the requisite findings that appellant had failed to reform while placed in his parents home, that the parents could not provide proper maintenance of appellant, and that appellants welfare required that custody be taken from his parents. (§ 726.) The court then ordered appellant to remain on probation, but remanded him to the care of the probation department for suitable out-of-home placement.
Discussion
The courts dispositional order states that appellants maximum period of confinement is one year and that he is entitled to fours days credit for time served in juvenile hall. The probation report states that appellant was entitled to 11 days of custody credit on the date of the dispositional hearing. Appellate counsel apparently brought this discrepancy to the attention of the trial court. The court responded in a letter dated August 19, 2003, that there was no error in the calculation of appellants custody credits because it is the practice in Mendocino County for the court to determine the days spent by a juvenile in custody on the particular petition before the court and for the probation department to keep a cumulative total of all days spent in custody that are to be credited toward a particular maximum period of confinement. The court, therefore, concluded that because the original dispositional order in this matter granted appellant seven days credit and the dispositional order that is the subject of this review granted appellant four days credit for time served in custody and because the probation departments report correctly determined that the credits awarded in the two dispositional orders totaled eleven days, "The court file establishes that [appellant] was, in fact, given credit for the 11 days he spent in custody pre-disposition." (Letter from Mendocino County Super. Ct. of August 19, 2003, emphasis added.)
The court has a duty to include in the dispositional order the cumulative credit earned by appellant and not just the days spent in custody for the current violation of the terms of his probation. This duty is not satisfied by the calculation of appellants cumulative predispositional credit by the probation department. The probation departments report is appropriately entitled a recommendation to the court and is not the courts order.
Accordingly, the dispositional order in this matter is modified to include that the minor is entitled to 11 days credit toward his maximum period of confinement. The courts order as modified is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P. J., Corrigan, J.