In re D.G. CA1/5

Filed 10/23/26 In re D.G. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE In re D.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, A174045 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Alameda County v. Super. Ct. No. JV-033034-15) D.G., Defendant and Appellant. In December 2023, defendant and appellant D.G. (appellant) was committed to a secure youth treatment facility (SYTF) after he admitted to carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)).1 The juvenile court imposed a baseline term of four years, with a maximum term of 8 years 9 months. In December 2024, appellant was placed into a less restrictive program, and he absconded within the month. On January 30, 2025, he participated in the armed robbery of a cash-transport van. The Alameda County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that appellant committed two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211) and one count of carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)). In June, appellant 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1 admitted he committed two counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and the juvenile court dismissed the rest of the petition. In July 2025, the juvenile court committed appellant to a SYTF for a baseline term of four years and a maximum term of 15 years, with 1,138 days of credit for time served. The court stated that the new baseline term would run “concurrent” to the previously imposed baseline. Appellant appealed. He contends that the juvenile court erred in imposing a second baseline term concurrent to the first baseline term. Respondent agrees. Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, subdivision (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.” (Italics added.) Because the statute does not authorize the imposition of multiple concurrent baseline terms of confinement, the juvenile court erred. The parties agree that, “[t]o 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 that appellant continues to receive credit for that period by awarding him commensurate precommitment credits towards his new maximum term.” The parties also agree the juvenile court erred in calculating appellant’s precommitment credits. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (c)(1)(C) [“Precommitment credits for time served must be applied against the 2 maximum term of confinement”].) We will direct the juvenile court to recalculate appellant’s precommitment credits. DISPOSITION This matter is remanded to the juvenile court with instructions to impose a single baseline term and to recalculate appellant’s precommitment credits. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. SIMONS, Acting P. J. We concur. BURNS, J. CHOU, J. (A174045) 3