Filed 4/30/14 In re Luis Z. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re LUIS Z., a Pe rson Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LUIS Z.,

Defendant and Appellant. G048603

(Super. Ct. No. DL044386)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Orange County, Gregory W. Jones, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Sarah A. Stockwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.2 Kamala D. Harris, Attorney Genera l, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistan t Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Stacy Tyler, Deputy Attorneys Genera l, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

On appeal minor Luis Z. asserts th e court miscalculated his presentence custody credits. We agree and therefore m odify the judgment to reflect the proper number of days of custody credit. In a ll other respects, we affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Minor admitted the allegations of a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) 1 alleging he committed misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, § 240) and misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242). The allegations concerned minor’s pushing his mother and throwing things at her. The court gran ted him informal probation and

released him to his mother. Minor served three days in juvenile hall while awaiting disposition of the matter. Subsequently, a second juvenile ward ship petition (§ 602) against minor alleged he committed felony assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and felony making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)). The allegations concerned mi nor’s altercation with an employee at Orangewood Children’s Home. At a pretrial hearing, the court reduced both allegations

to misdemeanors and minor ad mitted them. The court decl ared minor its ward and

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.3 terminated informal probation on the first petition, but gran ted him formal probation on both petitions and sentenced him to time served, ostensibly 42 days.

Minor is Entitled to Additiona l Presentence Custody Credit Minor contends, and the Attorney Gene ral agrees, that the court erred by failing to give him credit for the three days he served in cust ody while awaiting the disposition of the first petition agai nst him. They are correct. “If the minor is removed from the physi cal custody of his or her parent or guardian as the result of an order of wardsh ip made pursuant to Se ction 602, the order shall specify that the minor may not be held in physical confinement for a period in excess of the maximum term of imprisonmen t which could be imposed upon an adult

convicted of the offense or offenses whic h brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. [¶] . . . [¶] If the 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).) Pena l Code section 1170.1 provides: “[W]hen any person is convicted . . . whether in the same proceeding or court or in different proceedings or courts, . . . the aggregate term of imprisonment for

all . . . convictions shall be the sum of the principal term, the subo rdinate term, and any additional term imposed . . . .” ( Id ., subd. (a).) “The California Supreme Court has concluded that when a juvenile court elects to aggregate a minor’s period of physical confinement on multiple petitions pursuant to these foregoing statutory provisions, the court must also aggregate the predisposition cu stody credits attributable to those multiple petitions.” ( In re Stephon L. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1232.)4 DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to grant defendant a total of 45 days of actual custody credit. In all other resp ects, the judgment is affirmed.

IKOLA, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

MOORE, J.