Opinion
F075909
03-28-2018
In re ERNESTO R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERNESTO R., Defendant and Appellant.
Karriem Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Jennifer Oleksa, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 514216)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Rubén A. Villalobos, Judge. Karriem Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Jennifer Oleksa, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
Minor Ernesto R. was the subject of three juvenile wardship petitions pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The petitions were filed on May 18, 2016, November 1, 2016, and April 3, 2017, and each was sustained thereafter. He appeals from the dispositional order assigning his predisposition custody credits. We reverse that dispositional order and remand.
DISCUSSION
The parties agree that the juvenile court aggregated minor's three sustained petitions, but erred in failing to aggregate his predisposition custody credits. The parties disagree, however, as to the final number of custody credits minor should be awarded. Minor contends the juvenile court should have awarded 246 days instead of 162 days. The People, on the other hand, argue the court should have awarded 215 days. The People's argument is based on their assessment of the juvenile detention log as erroneous and inaccurate. Minor maintains that, in light of the People's challenge to the accuracy of the juvenile detention log, we should remand for the juvenile court to calculate the correct number of custody credits based on minor's full record.
The People note that the log "appears to contain errors," and "also appears to include time spent in custody on unrelated matters which are not documented in the record on appeal." --------
"[A] minor is entitled to credit against his or her maximum term of confinement for the time spent in custody before the disposition hearing. (Pen. Code, § 2900.5, subd. (a); In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 533-536 (Eric J.).) It is the juvenile court's duty to calculate the number of days earned, and the court may not delegate that duty. (Pen. Code, § 2900.5, subd. (d); [citation].)" (In re Emilio C. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067.) Further, "when a juvenile court elects to aggregate a minor's period of physical confinement on multiple petitions ..., the court must also aggregate the predisposition custody credits attributable to those multiple petitions. (Eric J., supra, 25 Cal.3d 522.)" (In re Emilio C., supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 1067.)
We agree with the parties that the juvenile court erred, and we agree with minor that it is appropriate to remand the matter to the juvenile court to calculate minor's aggregated predisposition credits.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's dispositional order regarding minor's predisposition custody credits is reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court for calculation of minor's aggregated custody credits. The juvenile court's findings and orders are affirmed in all other respects.