From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re B.M.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
Jan 28, 2020
No. C089674 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2020)

Opinion

C089674

01-28-2020

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


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JV137411)

Defendant, B.M., appeals the juvenile court's dispositional order accepting the transfer of his case from Stanislaus County to Sacramento County, terminating his dependency case, adjudging him a ward of the court removed for placement, and granting him 154 days of custody credits. He argues, and the People concur, he should have been awarded an additional 22 days of custody credit, to account for the time he spent in custody in Stanislaus County prior to the transfer of this case arising out of his admission of committing attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211) with a firearm use allegation (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)).

We agree with the parties that B.M. is entitled to an additional 22 days of custody credit for the period spent in juvenile hall in Stanislaus County beginning at his arrest on December 6, 2018, and continuing through his transfer to Sacramento County on December 27, 2018. (See In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 536 [juvenile defendant entitled to "precommitment [custody] credit" for days detained in juvenile hall pending resolution of the charges against him or her]; In re J.M. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1256 [same].) Computational errors in custody credits result in an unauthorized sentence that we may and will correct on appeal. (People v. Guillen (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 756, 764 [correcting non-discretionary mathematical error in calculation of custody credits]; see also In re J.M., at p. 1257 [ordering juvenile court to file an amended minute order reflecting the minor's additional custody credits].)

DISPOSITION

We modify the judgment to grant B.M. an additional 22 days of custody credit for a total of 176 days of custody credit reflecting the total amount of time B.M. spent in custody from December 6, 2018, to May 30, 2019. The juvenile court is directed to prepare an amended minute order reflecting this number of credits. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

/s/_________

HOCH, J. We concur: /s/_________
BLEASE, Acting P. J. /s/_________
DUARTE, J.


Summaries of

In re B.M.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
Jan 28, 2020
No. C089674 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2020)
Case details for

In re B.M.

Case Details

Full title:In re B.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

Date published: Jan 28, 2020

Citations

No. C089674 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2020)