Filed 8/30/18 In re Jonathan G. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

Following appellant’s admission to felony assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury, he was redeclared a ward of the court and was committed by the juvenile court to the chief probation officer for out-of-home placement. Appellant filed a timely appeal, asserting the matter must be remanded to the juvenile court to specify the maximum term and calculate predisposition custody credits. While this appeal was pending, however, a new petition was filed alleging appellant committed various felonies and misdemeanors. He admitted two felony charges. At the disposition hearing on his new petition, the juvenile court vacated appellant’s prior out-of-home placement, and referred him for new placement. Appellant has filed a separate notice of appeal from the latter case. Because the disposition order which is the subject of this appeal has been superseded by the disposition order in appellant’s newest matter, this court cannot grant effective relief here, and his appeal is dismissed as moot.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]

A juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) was filed by the San Francisco District Attorney on February 17, 2016, alleging appellant committed felony assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,[2] § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and misdemeanor grand theft (§ 487, subd. (c)). Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant admitted a violation of misdemeanor assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury, and the theft charge was dismissed. The juvenile court declared him a ward of the court and ordered him to reside with his mother under probation department supervision.

The San Mateo County District Attorney later filed a second wardship petition on March 29, 2017, charging appellant with felony second degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)) and felony assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant admitted the felony assault charge, and the robbery charge was dismissed. The minute order states: “The maximum confinement time is: 4 years and 4 months.” Appellant initialed the waiver of rights plea form which also indicates the maximum period of confinement is four years four months. The matter was then transferred to San Francisco Superior Court for a disposition hearing.

The probation report for this transferred case noted appellant’s maximum confinement time was four years four months. A subsequent addendum to the probation report reiterated the maximum period of confinement was four years four months with 109 days of custody credits. The court read and considered these reports. At the disposition hearing held on December 14, 2017, the court redeclared appellant a ward of the court and committed him to the chief probation officer for out-of-home placement. Although the court read and considered the probation reports, it failed to specify appellant’s maximum confinement term or calculate his predisposition custody credits.

On January 11, 2018, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from this case.

While the appeal was pending, however, on March 2, 2018, appellant fled from his out-of-home placement, and on the following day, stole a vehicle, leading police on a high-speed chase. A third wardship petition, was filed alleging three felonies and numerous misdemeanors. On March 7, 2018, appellant admitted the felony charges of receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)) and recklessly fleeing a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). A disposition hearing was held on March 28, 2018. The court vacated appellant’s prior out-of-home placement, redeclared wardship, and referred him for a new placement. Appellant filed a separate notice of appeal which is not the subject of this appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

As to the December 14, 2017 disposition order, appellant contends the trial court erred by failing at the disposition hearing to specify his maximum confinement term or calculate his predisposition custody credits. He asserts the appropriate remedy is to remand the matter to the juvenile court directing it to specify the maximum confinement term and to calculate his custody credits.

When a minor is removed from his or her parent’s or custodian’s physical custody because of criminal violations sustained under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, the court must specify the maximum term of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense or offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (d)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.795(b); In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 541.) Additionally, the court is required to calculate credit for predisposition time spent in custody (In re J.M. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1256) and subtract that credit from the maximum confinement calculation (In re Lorenzo L. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1079).

We agree with appellant that the juvenile court failed to specify the maximum term of confinement and calculate the predisposition custody credits. We further agree that typically the remedy is to remand the matter for the juvenile court to state the maximum term and calculate custody credits. Under the circumstances of this case, however, appellant’s claim is moot because the December 14, 2017 disposition order was superseded when appellant absconded from his out-of-home placement in March 2018 and committed a string of offenses. “A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical impact or cannot provide the parties with effective relief.” (Simi Corp. v. Garamendi (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1503.) After appellant admitted two new felonies, and the juvenile court in March 2018 vacated the prior out-of-home placement, redeclared wardship, and referred appellant for a new placement, he was no longer being held pursuant to the challenged December 2017 disposition order. Thus, his maximum term of confinement and custody credits related to the prior disposition order are no longer applicable. Accordingly, we cannot grant appellant effective relief as to the December 2017 disposition order.

III. DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

____________________________

Margulies, J.

We concur:

_____________________________

Humes, P.J.

_____________________________

Dondero, J.

A153414

In re Jonathan G.