Error and/or relief
When ordering the minor committed to a secure youth treatment facility for the second time for new offenses after the minor escaped from the first commitment, the juvenile court erred in imposing a second baseline term concurrent to the first baseline term.
First Holding:
Welfare and Institutions Code section 875(b)(1) provides that a juvenile court shall set a baseline term of confinement for the ward that is based on the most serious recent offense for which the ward has been adjudicated.
The baseline term of confinement shall represent the time in custody necessary to meet the developmental and treatment needs of the ward and to prepare the ward for discharge to a period of probation supervision in the community.
Because the statute does not authorize the imposition of multiple concurrent baseline terms of confinement, the juvenile court erred.
It appears that the court may have attempted to impose a concurrent second base term in order to preserve the credit for time served already under the previous baseline. To the extent that the juvenile court imposed concurrent terms in order to preserve the credits that appellant had earned under his previous baseline term, the juvenile court can ensure that30 appellant continues to receive credit for that period by awarding him commensurate precommitment credits towards his new maximum term.
Authority:
WIC 875(b)(1)
Second Holding:
The juvenile court erred in calculating appellant’s precommitment credits. We will direct the juvenile court to recalculate appellant’s precommitment credits.
Authority:
WIC 875(c)(1)(C) [Precommitment credits for time served must be applied against the maximum term of confinement]