1DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/01/28 - Jan 28, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/01/28

California First District Court of Appeal 1h 9m 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal question about striking the maximum term of confinement?

Amit Kirlikar 0:00

Doing the else in camera.

Unknown 0:12

Formicville State of California First Appellate District Division III is now in session. The Honorable Allison came two groups on it.

Allison Harding 0:19

Good morning. Welcome. Please be seated. As you see, with me uh with me on the bench this morning are my colleagues, Justice Karen Fujisaki. And Justice Yuana Petru, we will later on have a Panel change before line two. But it looks like we're already on line one, so I will call the matter of inrayc.

Amanda Rose 0:46

Morning, Your Honors. Amanda Rose for the Minor J C. And I'd like to first start with the question that the court issued in the focus memo. And uh the question was should the maximum term of confinement be stricken?

Allison Harding 1:01

Before you get to that We normally let the opposing counsel m uh make an appearance first. So we'll just ask him to stand up at the microphone, tell us who he is, and then we will proceed.

Amit Kirlikar 1:16

Good morning, Your Honors. Uh Amit Kirlikar on BAF of Responded to People.

Allison Harding 1:20

Good

Amit Kirlikar 1:20

morning. Good

Allison Harding 1:21

morning to you both, and please go ahead. We'll start the time over.

Amanda Rose 1:24

I was a little anxious. Thank you.

Allison Harding 1:26

No worries.

Amanda Rose 1:27

Okay. So the question was should we strike the maximum term of confinement? And my I have a qualified yes as an answer, uh, but not for the reasons stated. It should either be stricken or uh conditionally reversed. And the reason is that removal is no longer the key. Removal from parental custody is no longer the key for uh setting the maximum term of confinement. Since uh twenty twenty three, when the legislature enacted welfare and institutions code section six twenty-eight point two, which gives um custody credits to youth on інv on Electronic monitoring Um that is considered detention as well. And so I think in this case the court understood that it had to set a maximum term. The problem is that it was set without determining whether the uh offense was a felony or a misdemeanor.

Amanda Rose 2:16

So um I think that gets me oh I I did this morning and I'm sorry for the late notice, but I did provide the Senate uh committee on public safety Bill analysis. I'm not sure if the court received it. I shared it with counsel as well. But I think that answers the question completely that the the legislature intended that there would be a maximum term of confinement from which those custody credits would be deducted. Um going on to the second part, what is what happens to the six fifty four argument? Well I think the six fifty four argument is concededly meritorious. It just might be uh inapplicable until there is a maximum term set. And then the third part would be what do we do about the um the amount of home supervision that can be ordered in this case and I think no

Amanda Rose 3:02

Home supervision can be ordered until the maximum term is is determined which which is based on the Mancy W determination of whether it's a felony or a misdemeanor. Uh And then once that happens, then the six fifty four. argument is six feet four is applied to whatever the terms are.

How does California’s Welfare and Institutions Code §628.2 affect custody credits for electronic monitoring?

Amanda Rose 3:24

determined to be and one would have to be stayed.

Unknown 3:28

So can council I have a question. Um In terms of whether or not there is a six fifty four issue, how how do we determine that on a record whether We don't know. the circumstances of the crimes and whether it can be broken down into two separate offenses or if it in fact is is just one offense.

Amanda Rose 3:47

Well I think when you have an admission, you just look to the basics, the the statutory elements, uh there was nothing more proven and respondent has not disputed that six fifty four applies on its merits. They disputed The procedural aspects, but there's no question that there was on this record a single act. In fact, it was a momentary single act. Yeah. And I think that's that's common that when we have um admissions that you don't have more of a record, but that doesn't prevent the six fifty four argument from being applied. I've never seen a case that that encounter that raised that issue.

Allison Harding 4:29

So the six fifty four issue wasn't actually raised in the trial court, was in the juvenile court, was it?

Amanda Rose 4:35

No, it wasn't.

Allison Harding 4:36

There was quite a bit that was missed there. So since So if we agree with you that the case needs to go back because of Mancy error.