From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. R.C. (In re R.C.)

California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division
Jun 26, 2024
No. A168830 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2024)

Opinion

A168830

06-26-2024

In re R.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. R.C., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J2100514)

LANGHORNE WILSON, J.

R.C. appeals from a disposition order entered in a juvenile proceeding after revocation of probation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 777. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we remand the matter to the juvenile court to redetermine R.C.'s maximum confinement time and custody credits. We otherwise affirm.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

I. BACKGROUND

In October 2021, a wardship petition was filed under section 602 in Solano County that alleged R.C., aged 16, evaded an officer with reckless disregard. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a).) R.C. admitted to the allegation as a misdemeanor, and the matter was transferred to Contra Costa County for disposition.

In November 2021, in Contra Costa County, a second petition was filed that alleged R.C. unlawfully drove or took a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count one), while armed with a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)); possessed a concealed firearm as a prohibited person (id., § 25400, subds. (a)(1), (c)(4); count two); and possessed a loaded firearm as a prohibited person (id., § 25850, subds. (a), (c)(4); count three). The petition was later amended to add count four, alleging that R.C. carried a concealed firearm for which he was not the registered owner, a misdemeanor. (Id., § 25400, subds. (a)(1), (c)(6).) R.C. pleaded no contest to count four, and, upon the prosecution's motion, the juvenile court dismissed the remaining counts. At the disposition hearing, the court accepted the transfer from Solano County for the October 2021 petition and declared R.C. a ward with no termination date, ordered him committed to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) for six months, and placed him on probation subject to various terms and conditions. R.C. was released from the OAYRF in June 2022.

A third section 602 petition filed in July 2022 alleged that R.C. committed second degree robbery and personally used a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022.53, subd. (b).) At a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found true the allegations in the petition. In its September 2022 disposition order, the court committed R.C. to the Briones Youth Academy (BYA). The court identified R.C.'s "maximum custody time" as "7 years, or until age 23, whichever occurs first," with credit for time served for 269 days.

While R.C. was still committed to the BYA, a fourth section 602 petition was filed in May 2023 alleging that R.C. committed several other crimes following his release from the OAYRF: second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count I), with a firearm enhancement (id., § 12022, subd. (a)(1)); assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (id., § 245, subd. (a)(4); count II); grand theft (id., § 487, subd. (c); count III); and possession of a firearm by a minor (id., § 29610; count IV). R.C. admitted to counts II, III, and IV. Following a hearing in June 2023, the juvenile court released R.C. on home supervision.

In the next two months, three notices of probation violation were filed.(§ 777, subd. (a).) As described in the subsequent probation report, R.C. tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and his ankle monitor established dozens of curfew violations and "unauthorized movements." R.C. admitted to violating probation by using THC, leaving home without permission, and failing to adhere to curfew.

We need not recount the facts of the previous adjudications in detail. The failure to file a timely appeal from the prior disposition orders bars review of the earlier proceedings. (In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1138-1139, 1141.)

At the disposition hearing in August 2023, the juvenile court adopted probation's recommendation to continue R.C.'s indefinite wardship and commit him to a "modified" program at the BYA. The minute order for the hearing stated that the court "has the authority to impose 8 years 336 days of confinement time as of" August 30, 2023. (Capitalization and boldface omitted.)

At a review hearing approximately a month later, the juvenile court denied R.C.'s request to be released. This appeal followed. While this appeal was pending, the juvenile court released R.C. on home supervision.

On May 20, 2024, R.C.'s court-appointed attorney filed a letter attaching two of the juvenile court's minute orders from December 2023 and January 2024. We construe the letter as a request for judicial notice (In re Randi D. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 624, 627) and grant the request (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459).

II. DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief and notified R.C. of his right to file a supplemental brief. No supplemental brief has been filed.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119, we have independently reviewed the entire record and have found, generally speaking, there are no arguable issues. R.C. was represented by competent counsel at all relevant times. In obtaining R.C.'s admissions for his probation violations, the juvenile court advised R.C. of his constitutional rights, and he voluntarily waived them. His admissions were validly entered, and the court properly found that there was a factual basis for the admissions. Any issues with the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order committing R.C. to the BYA are moot in light of the court's order releasing him to home supervision. (In re Stephon L. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1231 [" 'A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical impact or cannot provide the parties with effective relief.' "].)

However, we cannot determine how the juvenile court arrived at eight years 336 days as the maximum confinement period. (§ 875, subd. (c).) No explanation was given by either the court or probation. This term exceeds the maximum confinement period set forth in the court's September 2022 disposition order and the maximum confinement period that could be imposed for the other section 602 petitions. It does not appear that the court (or probation) aggregated the confinement terms for R.C.'s previously sustained petitions in accordance with section 875 and Penal Code section 1170.1. (§ 875, subd. (c)(1)(B); Pen. Code, § 1170.1, subd. (a).) The court simply asked at a predisposition hearing for R.C.'s "remaining custody time," and probation responded, "Eight years and 349 days."

In any event, we need not make a final determination of the correct maximum term of confinement because it appears that R.C.'s predisposition credits may have been calculated incorrectly for the time he spent at the BYA following the September 2022 disposition. That disposition order set a maximum custody time of seven years, with credit for 269 days. From September 2, 2022, the date of the disposition, to June 7, 2023, R.C. was committed to the BYA, for a total of 278 days. A subsequent probation report calculated R.C.'s "custody time remaining" as five years 181 days "as of 6/7/23." (Capitalization omitted.) By our calculation, however, R.C.'s remaining custody time at that point was five years 183 days. If the court has aggregated the prior section 602 petitions, it must also aggregate all custody credits. (In re A.M. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1085-1086.) Because we cannot determine from the record whether the court has aggregated R.C.'s previously sustained petitions, and given its reliance on probation for R.C.'s confinement time, we direct the juvenile court, on remand, to recalculate the amount of time R.C. spent in custody, as well as to recalculate his maximum term of confinement.

This issue is not moot since R.C. may be returned to custody for future probation violations. (In re Stephon L., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 1231.)

III. DISPOSITION

The juvenile court's August 30, 2023 order is reversed to the extent it sets the maximum term of confinement for R.C.'s offenses. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court to redetermine R.C.'s custody credits and his maximum term of confinement. In all other respects, the August 30, 2023 order and the September 20, 2023 order are affirmed.

WE CONCUR: HUMES, P. J., SIGGINS, J. [*]

[*] Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

People v. R.C. (In re R.C.)

California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division
Jun 26, 2024
No. A168830 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2024)
Case details for

People v. R.C. (In re R.C.)

Case Details

Full title:In re R.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. R.C.…

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

Date published: Jun 26, 2024

Citations

No. A168830 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2024)