In re Marco T.
Filed 3/30/06 In re Marco T. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re MARCO T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCO T., Defendant and Appellant. |
F047794
(Super. Ct. No. 02CEJ602112-3)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Adolfo M. Corona, Judge.
Roshni Mehta, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Julie A. Hokans, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Minor appellant Marco T. contends the juvenile court erred by not exercising discretion in setting his maximum period of confinement (MPC) and by miscalculating his custody credits. We agree with Marco's second contention and will modify the judgment to reflect the actual number of days Marco spent in confinement prior to disposition.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 2004, City of Kerman Police Detective Kirk Collins was on patrol when he discovered graffiti had been spray-painted on various buildings, street signs, light poles, and garbage cans. Familiar with 17-year-old Marco's style of writing from prior incidents of vandalism and aware he was subject to search without a warrant, Detective Collins arrested Marco on November 22, 2004. The detective noticed items in Marco's bedroom with markings similar to the graffiti he observed on the street. The detective took Marco to the police department and showed him pictures of the vandalism. Appellant admitted he painted some, but not all, of the graffiti. A city maintenance worker advised Detective Collins the damage to city property was about $1,092.50.
After a February 2005 contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found Marco did not commit felony vandalism as alleged (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)), but that he committed the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor vandalism of under $400 in damage (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)). At a dispositional hearing the following month, the juvenile court ordered Marco remain a ward of the court and continue on probation until September 11, 2006. The juvenile court added four months to Marco's prior juvenile wardship petition terms for a total MPC of three years six months. The juvenile court also granted Marco 282 days credit for time already spent in confinement and committed him to the Elkhorn Correctional Facility's Delta Program for up to 365 days.
DISCUSSION
I. Maximum Period of Confinement
When the juvenile court orders a minor removed from the custody of his or her parents or guardian, the juvenile court must specify that the minor may not be held in physical confinement longer than the maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed on an adult convicted of the same offense. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (c).) â€
