Opinion
F062452 Super. Ct. No. JJD061271
01-25-2012
In re A.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.J., Defendant and Appellant.
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Harry Joseph Colombo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., Poochigian, J.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Hugo J. Loza, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Harry Joseph Colombo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 28, 2009, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that appellant, A.J., was in possession of metal knuckles (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1), count one) and a dirk or dagger (§ 12020, subd. (a)(4), count two). On April 29, 2009, appellant admitted both counts. On May 13, 2009, the juvenile court found both counts to be felonies. The court noted appellant had 17 days of custody credits. The minor was released into his mother's custody on a deferred entry of judgment.
Unless otherwise designated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On July 16, 2010, appellant admitted a new allegation that he was in possession of a dirk or dagger. On July 30, 2010, the court found the allegation to be a felony and that appellant's maximum term of confinement was four years four months. Appellant had 37 days of custody credits. Appellant was placed on probation upon various terms and conditions, including his commitment to the short-term program of the juvenile hall.
On February 3, 2011, appellant admitted an allegation that he violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for using marijuana. A probation officer's report filed on February 15, 2011, indicated that appellant spent a total of 216 days in custody as of that date.
On February 24, 2011, the juvenile court continued appellant's probation. The court noted that if appellant committed a new violation, he would be committed to the short-term program. The court suspended appellant's commitment to that program. Among the conditions of probation were that appellant had to be enrolled in school, test clean in drug tests, and enroll in the Turning Point program.
On March 28, 2011, appellant admitted a new allegation that he tested positive for marijuana. Appellant was ordered to serve the previously suspended term of 180 days for the short-term program at juvenile hall. The juvenile court did not make a finding concerning appellant's custody credits.
A chronological report of appellant's case history, filed on March 25, 2011, stated that appellant had 216 days of custody credits. Appellant was detained on March 23, 2011. Appellant contends the trial court erred in not awarding him an additional five days of custody credits for the time he was detained in juvenile hall. The parties concede appellant remained in the juvenile hall for five days prior to the hearing on March 28, 2011, and is entitled to five days of custody credits in addition to the 216 days of credits he had accrued prior to the hearing.
Because the only issue on appeal concerns appellant's custody credits, we do not review the underlying facts of appellant's offenses or his violations of probation.
--------
DISCUSSION
The parties concede that appellant was in custody for five days from March 23, 2011, until the hearing on March 28, 2011. Respondent also accurately points out that the juvenile court failed to make any determination of appellant's total custody credits at the hearing. An error in the calculation of custody credits can be raised for the first time on appeal. (In re Antwon R. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 348, 350-353.) Accordingly, appellant is entitled to an additional five days of custody credits.
DISPOSITION
The case is remanded for the juvenile court to amend the clerk's minutes to add an additional five days of custody credits to appellant's custody credits for a total of 221 days of custody credits. The remaining orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.