(Super. Ct. No. JV131352)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On May 20, 2010, a Wal-Mart employee tried to detain the minor, Michael R., after catching him shoplifting a BB gun. The minor stabbed the man six times in the chest and abdomen. The juvenile court declared the minor a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602)*fn1 after he admitted the assault with a deadly weapon and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1); 12022.7).
Even though the maximum term of confinement that the minor could have received was seven years, the juvenile court limited his commitment to the Department of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) to three years. In committing the minor to DJF, the court calculated that he was entitled to 314 days' credit for time served in juvenile hall. After receiving a request for clarification from the DJF, the juvenile court modified the minor's commitment (§§ 726, 727) to state that the 314 days' credit applied only to the seven-year maximum term of confinement and did not reduce the term for which he was actually committed.
On appeal, the minor contends (1) his commitment was modified without notice or good cause, and (2) the juvenile court erred in refusing to apply the credits to his actual commitment.
We conclude that the minor's claim regarding lack of notice is forfeited because he did not object on that ground during the juvenile court hearing. We also conclude that the juvenile court did not err in applying the credits only to the seven-year maximum term of confinement. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Following a contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared the minor a ward of the court and committed him to the DJF for no more than three years even though his maximum term of confinement was seven years. The court found that the minor was entitled to 314 days' credit for confinement in juvenile hall.
About a month later, the DJF liaison wrote a letter to the juvenile court asking whether the 314 days' credit applied to the actual three-year commitment or to the seven-year maximum term of confinement. The letter further stated: "The 314 days, if credited against the commitment time of 3 years, would reduce the commitment to 2 years and 2 months. We believe this would greatly effect [sic] the ability of [DJF] to accomplish it's [sic] goal of treatment and rehabilitation."
At a hearing on DJF's request, the juvenile court stated that rehabilitation was one of the goals of the DJF commitment. The court expressed its inclination to apply the precommitment credits only to the seven-year maximum term.
Counsel for the minor objected to the letter as expert testimony without a proper foundation, and claimed the proposed ruling would deprive the minor of the credits he had earned. Counsel argued the letter did not indicate that DJF could not rehabilitate the minor in two years and two months. Minor's counsel also asserted that most DJF rehabilitation plans could be accomplished within two years.
The juvenile court overruled the objection and amended the commitment order to state that the precommitment credits applied only to the ...