Filed 5/25/22 In re D.L. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from a disposition order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Tilisha Martin, Judge. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions.

Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christine Y. Friedman, and Eric A. Swenson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This is an appeal from a disposition order in the juvenile court. D.L. (the Minor) contends the court erred in calculating the maximum potential custody for the instant case and the multiple prior adjudications the minor has accumulated. The Attorney General correctly agrees and concedes the case must be remanded to the juvenile court to correct the errors and to consider recent statutory changes in the rules for calculation of maximum custody in juvenile cases. We will accept the Attorney General’s concession and remand.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Following an adjudication hearing, the Minor was found to have committed the following offenses as alleged in a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602: Count 1 minor in possession of a handgun (Pen. Code,[1] § 29610); Count 2 unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29815); Count 3 possession of a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400); Count 4 minor in possession of ammunition (§ 29650); Count 5 possession of a firearm without a manufacturer’s number or other mark of identification (§ 23920).

The court established the maximum custody period for the current offenses would be two years. The maximum period selected for the accumulated adjudications was set at 17 years.

The disposition hearing did not address either the maximum custody terms or the appropriate custody credits. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal. The Minor does not challenge the adjudication of his offenses or the disposition; therefore, the facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the resolution of this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts.

DISCUSSION

The parties agree the court miscalculated the term for the current offense. Given that count 3 was stayed under section 654, the term should only be 20 months. Further, recent legislation has changed the rules for calculating the maximum aggregate custody term for multiple offenses.

Senate Bill No. 92, effective May 14, 2021, amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 on the calculation of terms. Among other things, the statute now limits the term for juvenile confinement to not exceed the middle term of imprisonment for the offense. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (d)(3).) The parties agree that the Minor should have the opportunity to take any of the benefits of the statutory changes. The court can also address the issue of the proper calculation of custody credits at that time. (In re Edward B. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1228, 1238.)

DISPOSITION

The disposition order is reversed to the extent it incorporates the maximum custody terms and custody credits, which were calculated at the adjudication hearing. The case is remanded with directions to recalculate the maximum custody term and the appropriate custody credits and to amend the order appropriately. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

AARON, J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.