Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV34122
Bamattre-Manoukian, ACTING P.J.
The minor J. C. appeals from a juvenile court order dismissing two probation violation matters but continuing the minor on probation for the underlying matter due to an outstanding balance on its disposition order to pay victim restitution. The minor contends that she is entitled to have the underlying matter dismissed pursuant to the agreement she signed in order to participate in the Juvenile Treatment Court drug program (JTC). As we disagree with the minor’s contention, we will affirm the court’s order.
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 2007, the minor and three of her friends used a rock to smash the rear window of a vehicle in a school parking lot, and used a sharp object to scratch the paint in different areas of the vehicle, because the driver of the vehicle had been in a fight with one of the friends earlier that day. The district attorney filed petition No. JV34122 under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 on March 13, 2008, alleging that the minor, then age 16, committed felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a) & (b)(1)). At the jurisdiction hearing on April 22, 2008, the minor admitted the allegations in the petition, which the probation officer and the minor’s counsel termed “an ‘A’ petition.” The court adjudged the minor to be a ward of the court and placed her on probation with various terms and conditions, including that she pay restitution of $3,849.38 to the victim “before the end of Probation,” that she not be outside the family home between the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. without adult supervision, and that she not use any controlled substance. The court told the minor that it would consider reducing the offense to a misdemeanor if she could “show good progress on probation,” including making restitution payments, and it set a restitution review hearing for October 22, 2008.
Further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
On June 5, 2008, the probation department filed a notice under section 777 alleging that the minor had violated probation by leaving the family home without permission on May 26, 2008, and not returning until May 29, 2008, and by testing positive for amphetamines on May 29, 2008. At a hearing on June 30, 2008, the probation officer referred to the notice as “petition number 34122B.” The minor admitted violating her probation, and the court set the matter for a disposition hearing.
On July 15, 2008, the probation department filed a new notice under section 777 alleging that the minor had violated probation by leaving the family home without permission on July 2, 2008, and not returning until July 8, 2008. At a hearing on July 16, 2008, the probation officer referred to the notice as “petition number 34122C.” The court consolidated “the petitions, B and C,” ordered a drug and alcohol services assessment and a screening for JTC, and continued the matter. On August 12, 2008, the minor was placed in the electronic monitoring program.
At the continued hearing on August 18, 2008, the minor admitted violating her probation. The court noted that the minor had been found eligible for JTC, and it set both probation violation matters for disposition on September 4, 2008. The court also ordered that the restitution review hearing set for October 22, 2008, on “the ‘A’ petition” remain as set.
On September 4, 2008, the minor, her counsel, the court, and the minor’s mother signed a JTC “Disposition Agreement” relating to the “WI 777 ‘B’ ” and “WI 777 ‘C’ ” allegations. The agreement states in part, “I understand that the Court will be staying time in Juvenile Hall or the Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility (the Ranch) as an incentive for me to graduate from JTC. I also understand that the Court will be staying other terms of my probation such as fines and fees. If I graduate from JTC, my probation will be terminated and the stayed portions of my probation will not be imposed. I will not have to serve the stayed custody time.” The court continued the minor on the electronic monitoring program, set attorney fees at $100, and ordered that “any fines and fees are stayed pending successful completion of [JTC].” The court also ordered, at the minor’s request, a restitution update on the original matter.
At the minor’s first JTC review on September 11, 2008, the probation officer reported that the minor was doing well on the electronic monitoring program and was attending the treatment program. She had made arrangements to pay $200 per month toward victim restitution, and had made her first payment on September 4, 2008. The court removed the minor from the electronic monitoring program, set the matter for another JTC review on September 25, 2008, and for a restitution review on October 23, 2008.
At the JTC review on September 25, 2008, the probation officer reported that the minor was attending her treatment program, reporting to probation, and providing negative drug tests. The court set the matter for another JTC review on October 16, 2008. At the October 16, 2008 review, the probation officer reported that the minor was attending her treatment program, but she failed to report to probation as directed on September 30, 2008, and October 7, 2008, for drug testing. The court vacated the October 23, 2008 restitution hearing date, and set a new JTC review hearing and restitution review hearing for November 6, 2008.
At the hearing on November 6, 2008, the probation officer reported that the minor missed her treatment meetings on October 13 and 17, 2008, and she failed to report to probation on October 28, 2008. However, she reported on October 30, 2008, and had a negative drug test. In addition, the minor had paid a total of $400 toward victim restitution, leaving a balance of $3,449.38. The court set the matter for another JTC review on December 11, 2008, and continued the restitution review hearing for six months. At the hearing on December 11, 2008, the probation officer reported that the minor was reporting to probation, providing negative drug tests, and attending her treatment program. However, she had not made any additional payments toward victim restitution. The court noted that the minor had advanced to Phase II of the JTC program effective November 6, 2008, and set the next JTC review for January 8, 2009.
At the hearing on January 8, 2009, the probation officer reported that the minor was reporting to probation, providing negative drug tests, and attending her treatment program. However, she had not made any additional payments toward victim restitution. The court advanced the minor to Phase III of the JTC program and set the next JTC review for February 19, 2009. At the hearing on February 19, 2009, the probation officer reported that the minor was attending her treatment program, reporting to probation, and providing negative drug tests, and that she could be ready to graduate from the JTC program at her next court hearing. She had made payments totaling $600 toward victim restitution, leaving a balance of $3,249.38. The court set the next JTC review and possible graduation for April 2, 2009.
At the hearing on April 2, 2009, the probation officer reported that the minor had completed the requirements of the JTC program and was ready to graduate from it. She was reporting to probation and providing negative drug tests. However, she had an outstanding balance of $2,949.83 for her victim restitution. The prosecutor requested that the minor’s probation continue due to “some issues about restitution.” The court informed the minor that it could not take her off probation “because there’s restitution owing.” The minor argued that she had accepted responsibility for the restitution and would continue to make payments, so that she had “earned her probation being dismissed according to the [JTC] contract.” The court set the original matter for a restitution review on October 5, 2009. “By then another thousand dollars at least should have been paid at the rate [the minor] is going. And I’ll consider a dismissal of probation at that time with a JV790.” The court dismissed the JTC matters, stating “anything that was previously stayed is gone away.”
The minor has appealed from the juvenile court’s April 2, 2009 orders.
DISCUSSION
In her opening brief, the minor contends that she had entered into a written contract wherein the juvenile court promised to terminate probation if she graduated from the JTC program. However, after she graduated from the program, the court refused to uphold its contractual obligation to terminate her probation. Therefore, the court breached the contract and abused its discretion by refusing to terminate probation. The minor separately contends that she is entitled to specific performance of the JTC contract she signed.
Respondent contends that the minor’s contentions “ignore[] the fact that the JTC agreement went only to disposition for the B and C probation revocation matters. The agreement specifies those matters only, and nowhere reflects [the minor’s] JTC disposition included her A matter, for which disposition occurred more than four months earlier on April 22, 2008.... Inasmuch as the JTC agreement had no application to [the minor’s] probation disposition as [to] petition A, [the minor’s] probation on that petition was unaffected by the terms of the JTC agreement.”
In her reply brief, the minor contends that “the petitions filed pursuant to section 777 and admitted by [the minor]... are not new and separate grants of probation, but modifications to the grant of probation already in place as a result of the original petition filed pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 602. Thus, it makes no sense to say, as does respondent, that the contract applied only to the section 777 petitions as they refer to the same grant of probation that was originally imposed.”
A section 602 matter begins when the district attorney files a petition under that statute. (§§ 650, subd. (c), 681, subd. (a); In re Eddie M. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 480, 487 (Eddie M.).) The petition states which penal laws were violated and whether the offenses are felonies or misdemeanors. (§§ 656, subd. (f); 656.1; Eddie M., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 487.) Once the juvenile court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal offense has been proved (§ 701), the court may place the minor on probation. (Eddie M., supra, at p. 487.)
All juvenile court orders may be modified “as the judge deems meet and proper.” (§ 775.) Thus, the court has discretion to modify dispositional orders that have not succeeded in rehabilitating the affected minor. (§§ 777-779; Eddie M., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 489.) A notice under section 777 initiates a probation violation procedure in which no criminal offense is alleged. (Eddie M., supra, at p. 490.) If a violation of a condition of probation is found, the juvenile court may modify its disposition order and order, at most, a more restrictive juvenile placement. (Eddie M., supra, at pp. 485, 489; John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 165.) Generally speaking, juvenile courts follow section 777 procedures by hearing evidence as to the efficacy of the prior disposition, considering whether the prior disposition order had failed, and determining if a more restrictive level of confinement is necessary to the minor’s rehabilitation. (In re Jorge Z. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 223, 236.) “After hearing evidence, the court must reassess the disposition in light of the then prevailing circumstances.” (Id. at p. 233.)
“A juvenile court enjoys broad discretion to fashion conditions of probation for the purpose of rehabilitation and may even impose a condition of probation which would be unconstitutional or otherwise improper so long as it is tailored to specifically meet the needs of the juvenile. [Citations.] That discretion will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse.” (In re Tanya B. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1, 7, overruled on another point by In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811, 812; see also In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68, 81.)
In this case, the juvenile court placed the minor on probation on April 22, 2008, with various terms and conditions, including that she pay victim restitution of over $3,800 before the end of her probationary period. After the minor admitted on June 30, 2008, and August 18, 2008, that she had violated some of the conditions of her probation, the court properly reassessed its original disposition order. On September 4, 2008, the court modified the terms of the minor’s probation by, in part, agreeing with the minor’s request for her to participate in the JTC program. The JTC “Disposition Agreement” the court and the minor signed specifies that probation will be terminated upon the minor’s graduation from JTC. However, the “Disposition Agreement” also specifically states that it applies to the disposition of the “WI 777 ‘B’ ” and “WI 777 ‘C’ ” allegations only. Some of the other terms and conditions of the minor’s original disposition order of probation on the section 602 matter were not stayed and remained, including that she pay victim restitution. Accordingly, at the same hearing, the court ordered, at the minor’s request, a restitution update for the next scheduled hearing.
The minor graduated from the JTC program, and on April 2, 2009, the court terminated the other conditions of probation it had imposed regarding the section 777 matters, as promised in the JTC agreement the minor and the court had signed. The court refused to terminate probation on the section 602 matter, as the minor had not yet substantially satisfied her agreement to pay over $3,800 in victim restitution. However, the court agreed to review the matter again in six months and to consider terminating probation at that time if the minor had paid another $1,000 toward the victim restitution. Given the broad discretion of the juvenile court on matters of probation, on this record we cannot say that the court abused its discretion by refusing to terminate the minor’s probation on the section 602 matter at the April 2, 2009 hearing.
DISPOSITION
The orders of April 2, 2009, are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Mcadams, J., duffy, J.