Court Opinion

ID: 9909693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 21:02:21.601362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:17.027838
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/13/23 P. v. Michael S. CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

 THE PEOPLE,                                                  B326972

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                          (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. YJ40145)
           v.

 MICHAEL S.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court.
Miguel Espinoza and J. Christopher Smith, Judges. Affirmed.
      Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
                           ___________
      Michael S. appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition
order committing him to a secure youth treatment facility for a
baseline term of 18 months with a maximum confinement of two
years after he admitted to one count of assault upon the person of
another by any means of force likely to produce great bodily
injury. The court ordered Michael to receive 182 days of
precommitment credits toward the baseline term pursuant to In
re Ernesto L. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 31.1
      No arguable issues have been identified following review of
the record by appointed appellate counsel or our own
independent review. We affirm.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      According to the probation officer’s report, when Michael
was 16 years old, he entered a convenience store, pointed a
loaded firearm at the cashier, and demanded that the cashier
open the cash register. Michael and his two companions took
cash and tobacco products from the store. The People filed a
Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition2 alleging one
count of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)

1      The Court of Appeal in In re Ernesto L., supra,
81 Cal.App.5th at page 43 concluded “the minor’s precommitment
credits must be applied against the ‘maximum term [the court
sets] based upon the facts and circumstances’ under that
statute—i.e., the maximum custodial term.”
2     Welfare and Institutions Code, section 602, subdivision (a),
states, “Except as provided in Section 707, any minor who is
between 12 years of age and 17 years of age, inclusive, when he
or she violates any law of this state or of the United States or any
ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime other
than an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, is
within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge
the minor to be a ward of the court.”

                                 2
       On September 20, 2022 Michael entered a negotiated
disposition under which the People requested the juvenile court3
amend the petition to allege one felony count of assault upon the
person of another by means of force likely to produce great bodily
injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).) Michael admitted he
committed the assault, and the court dismissed the second degree
robbery count. The next day, pursuant to the negotiated
disposition, the juvenile court4 declared Michael a ward of the
state, committed him to a secure youth treatment facility for a
baseline term of 18 months and a maximum term of two years,
and awarded 182 days of precommitment credit to his
confinement time. The court dismissed two probation violation
notices in the interest of justice and ordered Michael to pay
restitution to the victim.
       Michael appealed the disposition order and the juvenile
court’s asserted failure “to provide pre-dispo credits (182 days) to
[the] base term [18 months].” (Capitalization omitted.)5

3     Judge Miguel Espinoza.
4     Judge J. Christopher Smith.
5     On March 8, 2023 Michael’s counsel filed a motion for relief
from default supported by counsel’s declaration stating Michael
wanted to appeal the juvenile court’s order calculating custody
credits but counsel inadvertently missed the deadline to file a
notice of appeal. (In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72, 84.) We
granted the motion.

                                 3
                        DISCUSSION

      We appointed counsel to represent Michael in this appeal.
After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues.
On September 26, 2023 counsel advised Michael that he could
submit any contentions or issues he wanted the court to consider.
We have received no response.
      We have examined the record and are satisfied appellate
counsel for Michael has complied with his responsibilities and
there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S.
259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119;
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)

                         DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed.

                                       FEUER, J.
We concur:

             SEGAL, Acting P. J.

             MARTINEZ, J.

                                   4