In Re Tan T.

By petition for writ of habeas corpus, Tan T., a minor, challenges the juvenile court’s denial of his requests for release from juvenile hall. He contends that 56 hours elapsed between his arrest and the filing of a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, 8 hours in excess of the 48-hour time limit stated in Welfare and Institutions Code section 631, subdivision (a), and California Rules of Court, rule 1470(a). 1 We conclude that the juvenile court erred when it declined to release *1400 petitioner. However, because petitioner has previously been released, we deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Factual and Procedural Background

On February 26, 1997, two petitions were filed concerning petitioner pursuant to section 602. 3 The first petition alleged that on January 16, 1997, petitioner, a 15-year-old minor, was arrested but not detained by an officer of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. It alleged that on January 15, 1997, petitioner had committed the felony of receiving stolen property, namely, a data organizer and cassette player. The second petition alleged that at 1 a.m. on February 24, 1997, petitioner was arrested by an…

I dissent. In my view, Los Angeles County Dept, of Children’s Services v. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 505 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 150 ], is dispositive on the issues before us.

In Los Angeles County Dept., as here, the key question was whether the statutory directive requiring a child’s release if no petition is filed within 48 hours is aimed at the juvenile court or the agency holding the child. Following the enactment of Welfare and Institutions Code sections 631 and 632 in 1961 (see Stats. 1961, ch. 1616, § 2, p. 3475), the Legislature enacted Welfare and Institutions Code sections 313 and 315, which are parallel provisions concerning dependent children that use essentially similar language. (See Stats. 1976, ch. 1068, § 7, pp. 4762-4763.)

The court in Los Angeles County Dept, interpreted Welfare and Institutions Code sections 313 and 315 in the context of a factual situation closely *1407 resembling the circumstances of this case. The court concluded that subdivision (a) of section 313, by its plain language, was aimed at the agency holding the child, reasoning that the juvenile court could not be directed to release a minor “within 48 hours after having been taken into…

HASTINGS, Acting P.J.

By petition for writ of habeas corpus, Tan T., a minor, challenges the juvenile court's denial of his requests for release from juvenile hall. He contends that 56 hours elapsed between his arrest and the filing of a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, 8 hours in excess of the 48-hour time limit stated in Welfare and Institutions Code section 631, subdivision (a), and California Rules of Court, rule 1470(a). [1] We conclude that the juvenile court erred when it declined to release petitioner. However, because petitioner has previously been released, we deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. [2]

On February 26, 1997, two petitions were filed concerning petitioner pursuant to section 602. [3] The first petition alleged that on January 16, 1997, petitioner, a 15-year-old minor, was arrested but not detained by an officer of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. It alleged that on January 15, 1997, petitioner had committed the felony of receiving stolen property, namely, a data organizer and cassette player. The second petition alleged that at 1 a.m. on February 24, 1997, petitioner was arrested by an officer of the…