Filed 12/27/17 In re K.B. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----




In re K. B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C082552


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K. B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. Nos. 69996, JJCJVDE20150001924)


The minor K. B. appeals from a dispositional order, arguing the juvenile court erred in failing to calculate her maximum term of confinement pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 726. The People concede. We agree and will remand the matter to the juvenile court.
The minor was declared a ward of the court after admitting allegations in a section 602 petition filed in 2014 that she committed the offenses of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, a felony; hit-and-run with property damage, a misdemeanor; and driving without a license, a misdemeanor. The juvenile court found the minor’s welfare required that custody be taken from her guardian temporarily and placed the minor on probation with her placement to be determined while she remained in juvenile hall. Placements were made but were, for the most part, unsuccessful as the minor absconded.
A petition filed May 24, 2016, alleged the minor again committed the offenses of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, a felony, and driving without a license, a misdemeanor. The petition provided notice that the People intended to increase the minor’s confinement time by aggregating the terms of her prior sustained petition, specifically, the minor’s prior sustained petition for driving without a license (six-month confinement time), hit-and-run with property damage (six months), and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (three years). The minor admitted a reduced charge of misdemeanor unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle in the May 2016 petition and the other count was dismissed in the interest of justice. The court continued the minor as a ward of the court and placed her in the custody of the probation department to be placed in a suitable home.
A petition filed July 5, 2016, alleged the minor committed an attempted assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, a misdemeanor, with a maximum confinement time of six months, and battery, a misdemeanor, with a maximum confinement time of one year. The petition stated that the People intended to move for aggregation.
A petition was also filed alleging the minor violated terms of probation by failing to comply with a juvenile justice center staff member, kicked a chair and threw another chair, and hit the victim with a closed fist. The minor denied the probation violation allegations and the allegations in the new petition.
At the contested hearing on July 12, 2016, the court granted the People’s oral motion to aggregate the minor’s sustained petitions. After the hearing, the court found that the minor committed the offense of misdemeanor battery. The court dismissed the allegation that the minor committed the offense of attempted assault, finding insufficient evidence. The court also found that the minor violated probation. The minor waived time and a new social study report for disposition. The court reinstated the minor on probation on the same terms and conditions, ordered her placed in a juvenile justice center for 23 days with credit for time served, and concluded it would be contrary to her welfare to continue to reside with her parent/guardian, ordering her placed with probation pending completion of a placement plan. The court did not state the minor’s maximum term of confinement as aggregated.
If a juvenile court “elects to aggregate the period of physical confinement on multiple counts or multiple petitions, including previously sustained petitions adjudging the minor a ward within Section 602, the ‘maximum term of imprisonment’ shall be the aggregate term of imprisonment specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1170.1 of the Penal Code . . . .” (§ 726, subd. (d)(3).) The court determines the principal term and adds one-third of the midterm for each subordinate term. (In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 536.) This requirement is applicable to misdemeanor and felony offenses. (Id. at p. 538.)
The juvenile court erred in failing to set forth the maximum term of confinement during the July 2016 dispositional hearing. (§ 726, subd. (d); In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, 573, overruled on other grounds in In re A.C. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 590, 591-592.) We will remand in order for the juvenile court to calculate the minor’s maximum term of confinement.
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded to the juvenile court to determine the maximum term of confinement.



/s/
Robie, J.



We concur:



/s/
Hull, Acting P. J.



/s/
Renner, J.