Filed 11 / 25 / 20 In re X.T. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re X

. T ., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court La w. 2d Juv. No. B 299264 (Super. Ct. No. MJ23409 ) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

X

. T

.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A Juvenile Petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602 ) alleged two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211 )

, 1 one count of possessing a firearm by a minor (§ 29610 ), and one count of possessing live ammunition by a minor (§ 29650 ) against appellant X.T. Both robbery counts included three enhancements: (1) use of a deadly

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.2

or dangerous weapon (§ 12022 , subd. (a )(1)); (2) use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); and (3) commission of a violent felony (§ 12022.53 , subd. (b) ). The petition included a determination of appellant’s ineligibility for deferred entry of judgment. Appellant denied the allegations. T he juvenile court sustained the petition
and committed appellant to the Department of Juvenile Facilities (“DJ F ”) in a disposition order dated June 26, 2019 . It calculated his maximum period of confinement as 14 years and his
maximum theoretical period of im prisonment as 32 years and 300 days

. Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion
when it ordered him to DJ F instead of a less restrictive alternative such as long

- term camp commitment. He also
contends it incorrectly calculated his predi sposition custody
credits and maximum term s of confinement and imprisonment

. We affirm appellant’s commitment to DJF but remand the case for the limited purpose of recalculating appellant’s custody
credits and term of confinement

. BACKGROUND Appellant a nd another man entered L o n ne l l Grimes’ s barber shop in Lancaster on the afternoon of May 1, 2018 and
asked for haircuts. Grimes told them he did not accept walk

- ins and planned to leave for the day once he finished the current
customer’s haircut. One of the men asked for a business card. When Grimes turned around to retrieve a card, appellant held a gun to his neck and took his cash, wallet, and cell phones. The other man took $ 400 and a chain from customer Rodrick Reese

. Reese’s two sons, ages 8 and 1 1, witnessed the robbery

.3 Grimes saw the two as they fled out the building

. He described appellant as having red pants, a gray sweater, and a
red tattoo on his neck. A sheriff’s deputy stopped a silver Mercedes

- Benz with no license plates shortly afte r the robbery. Two men jumped out and ran away in different directions. A d etective recovered Grimes’ s wallet from the back seat of the car along with a sweater matching the one worn by appellant. He found a loaded Glock handgun 50

- 75 feet away from whe re the traffic stop occurred. Security footage the detective obtained from a nearby business captured a suspect holding a handgun running from the car.
The d etective asked appellant’s mother to visit the local
sheriff’s station about a week after the ro bbery

. During her visit

, she said her son resembled the suspect in security footage. Appellant confess ed to the robbery in an interview with the same
detective several months later. He later challenged the admissibility of his confession and the case pr oceeded to adjudication.
DISCUSSION

Order Committing Appellant to DJF We review the juvenile court’s order of commitment for abuse of discretion. ( In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317,
1329

- 1330, citing In re Todd W. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 408, 416.)

“ ‘“ We must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings
when there is substan tial evidence to support them.”’” ( Id

. at

p. 1330
, quoting In re Lorenza M. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 49, 53.)
A ppellant contends the court abused its discretion when it
committed him to DJ F

. He explains how a litany of childhood

traumas

– his father’s death in a motorcycle accident and his4

mother’s brain injury during military service , as just two example s

– left him with mental health conditions best treated in
a less restrictive environment. He suggests a long

- term camp placement would provide him with better therapeutic services without compromising public safety

. In addition, t he greater number of camps avail able in relation to DFJ facilities would keep him closer to his two children

. We have no reason to doubt the tragedies appellant experienced in his formative years created or compounded mental
health conditions that continue to plague him

. Indeed, many i f not most entering the juvenile justice system bear trauma’s profound psychological imprint. 2 The record shows the juvenile

court likewise recognized the psychological roots of appellant’s troubles and the need to provide him with mental health services during commitment. It balanced these rehabilitative
considerations with public safety concerns presented by the violent nature of his present and past offenses

. Significantly,

a ppellant served six months in camp in 2016 after the court
sustained a petiti on alleging assault likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4).) This prior case closed less than
nine months before appellant and his accomplice robbed Mr. Grimes and Mr. Reese at gunpoint in front of two children.

2 See, e.g., Arredondo, Child Development , Children ’ s Mental Health and the Juven ile Justice System: Principles for Effective Decision

- Making (2003) 14 Stan. L. & Pol’ y Rev 13, 16 (“A typical youth who repeatedly appears before the juvenile
court

. . . has learned that the world can be unpredictable, capricious, threatening, and grossl y unfair. Additionally, he has not had the necessary developmental opportunity of internalizing consistently benevolent, reliable, and fair adult authority figures.”).5

Appellant’s prompt rec idivism following a long

- term camp
program , combined with his poor behavior in predisposition detention, evidence “the inappropriateness or ineffectiveness of
less restrictive alternatives” to DJF. ( In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396.) We affirm the juvenile court exercised its discretion properly when it committed appellant to DJF

.

Appellant’s Predisposition Credits
A ppellant spent 168 days in custody (i.e., January 10 to
June 26 , 2019) rather the 160 days reflected in the June 26 disposit ion order. The People agree appellant is entitled to eight additional days of predisposition credit. We conclude the same.

Appellant’s Maximum Period s of Confinement and Imprisonment
The disposition order specifies appellant’s maximum period
of confinem ent as 14 years and his theoretical maximum period of imprisonment as 32 years and 300 days

. Much of this time is
attributable to the three enhancements alleged in connection
with both robbery counts

. Appellant contends the juvenile court
erred when it a ggregated the terms associated with these
enhancements. The People again agree.
Penal Code section 12022.53, subd ivision (f) states “[a] n enhancement involving a firearm specified in Section 12021.5, 12022, 12022.3, 12022.4, 12022.5, or 12022.55 shall n ot be imposed on a person in addition to an enhancement imposed pursuant to this section. ” Appellant’s enhancements under
section 12022, subd ivision (a)(1) , section 12022.5, subd ivision (a),
and section 12022.53 fall within the ambit of subdivision (f). This

means the juvenile court should have applied only the longest term of the three enhancements instead of adding the three6

together. This error significantly lengthened the maximum periods of confinement and imprisonment for Counts 1 and 2.
CONCLUSIO N We conclude the court erred when it calculated appellant’s predisposition custody credits and maximum term s of
confinement and imprisonment

. We remand this matter with instructions to recalculate these parts of the June 26 , 2019 disposition order in a m anner consistent with this opinion

. We
otherwise affirm

. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN , J.

We concur:

GILBERT , P. J.

TANGEMAN , J.7 William A. Crowfoot , Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Steven A. T orres , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra , Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Rama R. Maline , Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.