People v. M.B.

317 Cal.Rptr.3d 836

IN RE M.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.M.B., Defendant and Appellant.

A166408

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4.

Filed January 31, 2024

Trial Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Trial Judge: Hon. J. Anthony Kline (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JW186158)

Sangeeta Sinha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Lawrence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Donna M. Provenzano, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Victoria Ratnikova and Amit Kurlekar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

STREETER, Acting P. J.

In this juvenile wardship proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code ¹ section 602, defendant M.B. admitted committing attempted murder and related enhancement allegations. The juvenile court committed M.B. to a secure youth treatment facility (SYTF) pursuant to section 875. The court specified a four-year "baseline term of confinement" (§ 875, subd. (b)), as well as a "maximum term of confinement" of 22 years to life (id., subd. (c)). The court ordered that M.B.’s precommitment credits be applied against the maximum term of confinement (id., subd. (c)(1)(C)).

On appeal, M.B. presents three main challenges to the court’s orders, all pertaining to the court’s rulings as to confinement terms and the application of credits.² First, he contends the court lacked jurisdiction to modify an earlier order setting the maximum term of confinement at four years. Second, M.B. argues in the alternative that, even if the court had jurisdiction, the indeterminate 22-years-to-life maximum term it set is unauthorized, because the longest term permitted by statute is a determinate term of 22 years. And, because the court had discretion to set a "maximum term of confinement" (§ 875, subd. (c)) that was lower than the 22-year statutory maximum, M.B. asserts that a remand is necessary for the court to exercise its discretion in selecting the maximum term of confinement. Finally, in his third set of arguments, M.B. claims equal protection principles require that his precommitment credits be applied against his four-year baseline term (rather than against the maximum term of confinement).

In response, the Attorney General argues the court had jurisdiction to make the challenged rulings and properly applied M.B.’s precommitment credits. As to the maximum term of confinement set by the court under section 875, the Attorney General concedes that the 22-years-to-life term is unauthorized and that the maximum term permitted by statute is 22 years. The Attorney General also agrees the juvenile court had discretion to set a maximum term of confinement that is lower than the 22-year statutory maximum.³ The Attorney General contends, however, that this court should simply modify the maximum term of confinement to 22 years, and that no remand is necessary because it is clear from the record that the court intended to impose that term.

We conclude the court had jurisdiction to enter the challenged order, and we reject M.B.’s argument that equal protection principles require application of precommitment credits against the baseline term. We will modify the court’s order to specify the maximum term of confinement is 22 years, and we will otherwise affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2021, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed an amended wardship petition (§ 602, subd. (a)) alleging M.B. had committed attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count 1); aggravated mayhem (id., § 205; count 2); five counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (id., § 245, subd. (b); counts 3 through 7); discharge of a firearm with gross negligence (id., § 246.3, subd. (a); count 8); and unlawful possession of a firearm by a minor (id., § 29610; count 9).⁴ On each count, the petition alleged M.B. was over 16 years old at the time of the offenses (§ 707, subd. (a)(1)).

As to the attempted murder count, the petition alleged M.B. personally used a firearm, personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (b)–(d)). The aggravated mayhem count was enhanced by an allegation that M.B. personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (id., § 12022.53, subd. (d)). For all the assault with a firearm counts, the petition alleged M.B. personally used a firearm (id., § 12022.5, subd. (a)). As to one of the assault with a firearm counts (count 3) and the attempted murder count, the petition alleged M.B. personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (id., § 12022.7, subd. (a)).

The allegations in the wardship petition arose from a shooting on August 21, 2020, on a public bus in Daly City.⁵ M.B. was seated on the bus. When the victim boarded the bus, M.B. pulled out a handgun and fired five times at the victim, hitting him in the abdomen. Other passengers were "in the line of fire of the discharged bullets."

M.B. and a female companion fled, running past the fallen victim and off the bus. Police later found them "hiding in thick vegetation near Highway 35/Northbound Highway 1 onramp." The victim "underwent emergency surgery for a single gunshot wound to the lower left abdomen, where 1/10th of his colon was removed, and he was treated for damage to his bowels." M.B. was 16 years, 11 months old at the time of the shooting.

On November 3, 2021 (the same day the amended petition was filed), M.B. admitted committing attempted murder and the allegations in connection with that count that he was over 16 years old at the time of the offense, that he personally used a firearm, and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury, in exchange for the striking of the premeditation and deliberation allegation and the dismissal of the other counts and allegations.

On April 26, 2022, the San Mateo County Juvenile Court transferred the matter to San Francisco County for disposition based on M.B.’s residency in San Francisco.

At the August 24, 2022 dispositional hearing, the San Francisco County Juvenile Court redeclared wardship and committed M.B. to an SYTF. The court set M.B.’s baseline term of confinement at four years, commencing, by stipulation, on July 6, 2022. The court set the maximum term of confinement at 22 years to life. The court stated it would reserve ruling on the application of precommitment credits and the baseline term.

The court’s written order issued after the August 24 hearing included the following findings:

"13. The maximum period of confinement that could be imposed pursuant to[section 875, subdivision (c)] is: 22 years to life.

"14. Having considered the individual facts and circumstances of the case, the court orders that the maximum period of confinement is: 22 years to life.

"15. The youth shall receive credit for time served in the amount to be determined by the court. This issue is reserved pending the court’s determination (at the review hearing on 9/6/22).

"16. The baseline term of confinement based on the most serious recent adjudicated offense is 4 years, commencing 7/6/22 pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The issue of baseline term is reserved by the court."

After the August 24 hearing, the parties filed briefs addressing the question of how M.B.’s precommitment credits should be applied. M.B. argued the credits should be applied against the baseline term of confinement, while the prosecutor contended the credits should instead be applied against the maximum term of confinement. The parties’ briefs focused in part on the decision in In re Ernesto L. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 31, 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 (Ernesto L.), a case we discuss further below.

At a hearing on September 14, 2022, the court ruled M.B.’s precommitment credits would be applied against his four-year baseline term in the SYTF. The court also modified certain portions of its August 24 order, specifically findings 13 and 14 (which, as noted, dealt with the "maximum period of confinement"). The court’s new finding 13 states the "maximum period of confinement to which the minor is exposed by statute is 22 years to life." The new finding 14 states that, "[h]aving considered the individual facts and circumstances of the case," the "maximum custodial term is four years."

The next day (September 15, 2022), the court—on its own motion—stayed the September 14 "order regarding credit for time served" and set a hearing for reconsideration of the order. The court’s stay order stated: "The issue of interest to the court is whether the recent opinion in the case of Ernesto L. is relevant to the ‘maximum term of confinement’ described in [section 875]."

On September 26, 2022, defense counsel filed a written objection to the court’s reconsideration of the September 14 order applying M.B.’s precommitment credits to the baseline term. Counsel argued that, because the order was valid and had been entered in the minutes, the court had lost jurisdiction to modify it.

On September 27, 2022, after a hearing, the court vacated the September 14 order and reinstated the August 24 order (including findings 13 and 14 pertaining to the "maximum period of confinement"). The court applied M.B.’s precommitment custody credits against "the maximum period of confinement as described under [section 875, subdivision (c)]." In response to defense counsel’s objection, the court concluded it had power to act because its ruling on September 14 had resulted in an unauthorized disposition.

M.B. appealed the August 24 and September 27 orders.⁶

II. DISCUSSION

A. Additional Background: Juvenile Justice Realignment, Section 875, and the Terms Imposed by the Juvenile Court

Until recently, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Ju- venile Justice ...