In Re Randy J.

People v. Randy J.

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 190·22 Cal. App. 4th 1497·28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 152·94 Daily Journal DAR 2794·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1614
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 4, 1994C014101California3,500 words

Opinion

Opinion

credits—for time spent both on “house arrest” and in two of his nonsecure prior placements—against his maximum term of commitment to the Youth Authority. He also claims the amount of credit otherwise calculated by the juvenile court is incorrect. In the published portion of this opinion, we reject the former contention. In the unpublished portion, we decline to reach the latter. As a result, we shall affirm.

Facts

The nature of the minor’s appellate contentions renders irrelevant any facts relating to his offenses, so we will not recount them. Pursuant to a July 1989 petition, the juvenile court ordered the minor to be subject to home arrest from July 24 to August 14, and again from September 26 to February 28, 1990. At a March 15, 1990, dispositional hearing, the court determined the minor was subject to a maximum period of physical confinement of five years, against which he was entitled to credit of twenty-eight days. The court removed the minor from his parents’ custody, granted probation, and committed him to the custody of the probation department for placement with a relative, foster home, group home, or private school.

The probation department placed the minor…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.