(Super. Ct. No. JV132141)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
J.B. (hereafter the minor) appeals from an order of the Sacramento County Superior Court placing him in a group home. He contends the commitment order was an abuse of discretion by the court because (1) the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate a probable benefit to him from the commitment, and (2) the court failed to consider proposed changes that would permit him to remain in his home. He also contends, and the People agree, that remand is required because the court failed to award him prior custody credit. We reject defendant's initial contention and, like the People, agree with his custody credit claim.
On April 4, 2011, pursuant to a plea bargain, the minor admitted one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). He was granted deferred entry of judgment and placed in custody of his mother under supervision by the probation officer.
On July 19, 2011, the minor was charged with one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) with an armed allegation (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (d)). On August 23, 2011, following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the robbery charge but not the firearm enhancement allegation. On September 19, 2011, the court ordered the minor removed from his mother's custody and ordered him placed in a "level A group home."
Citing In re Jonathan T. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 474 (Jonathan T.), and In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392 (Angela M.), the minor contends his group home placement must be reversed because the record fails to demonstrate that he would likely benefit from the placement. We reject the contention because there is no such requirement for a group home commitment.
Jonathon T. and Angela M. stand for the proposition that when a minor is committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF; formerly California Youth Authority (CYA)), that in addition to the factors which the court must consider under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725.5,*fn1 the record must show that, pursuant to section 734, it is probably likely that he or she will benefit from the commitment.*fn2 Specifically, in discussing commitments to DJF, Jonathan T. stated: "When determining the appropriate disposition in a delinquency proceeding, the juvenile courts are required to consider [section 725.5]. [Citations.] Additionally, 'there must be evidence in the record demonstrating both a probable benefit to the minor by a [DJF] commitment and the inappropriateness or ineffectiveness of less restrictive alternatives.' (In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396.)" (Jonathan T., supra, at pp. 484-485, italics added.)
Similarly, the court in In re Jose T. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 1142, stated, "When the court evaluates the minor after a section 777 petition [probation revocation] is filed, it must make required findings that the previous disposition has not been effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the minor, and, if the court chooses a [DJF] commitment, the court must be fully satisfied, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 734, that the mental and physical condition and qualifications of the ward render it probable that the ward will be benefited by the commitment." (Id. at. p. 1147, italics added.) ...