Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J08-01434
Dondero, J.
This appeal comes to us following an admission by defendant that he committed petty theft (Pen. Code, § 488), a misdemeanor, as alleged in a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Defendant claims that the trial court erred by failing to grant him informal probation pursuant to sections 654.2 and 725. We find that the trial court’s dispositional ruling was not an abuse of discretion, and affirm the judgment.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In light of defendant’s admission, our recitation of the facts related to the petty theft offense will be taken from the probation report, which in turn is based upon the police report of the incident.
On the afternoon of March 25, 2008, defendant and a friend entered a Circuit City Store in Pittsburg. Defendant “removed a Nintendo Gameboy video game from the shelf” and took it to the back of the store, where he removed the plastic wrapper from the packaging. Defendant’s friend then concealed the game in his pants. Both defendant and his friend attempted to leave the store without paying for the game, but were detained by security officers. During a subsequent interview at the probation department, defendant expressed recognition that he “did something stupid,” but also stated that, “people are making a big deal about the incident for no reason.”
The wardship petition filed on August 28, 2008, alleged that defendant committed a misdemeanor petty theft offense. On September 29, 2008, defendant denied the allegations of the petition and the court ordered the probation department to screen him for possible placement on informal probation (§ 654.2). The probation report indicated that although defendant admitted the petty theft offense was “stupid,” he also blamed his friend for the “idea.” According to the report, at home defendant becomes “very angry” with his mother and “is very disrespectful to her.” He “constantly uses vulgar language” directed at his mother and “seems to be very immature.” He was referred to the Community School program, but “earned his way back into the Pittsburg Unified School District.” However, his attendance at school was “marginal,” and he suffered a suspension. He had been referred to a counseling program to treat “anger and behavior issues.” Defendant was characterized in the report as “incorrigible” rather than delinquent. The report recommended that defendant “be placed on informal probation for three months,” with specified conditions. At a hearing on October 20, 2008, the court declined to follow the probation department’s recommendation and denied informal probation to defendant.
At a pretrial hearing on November 10, 2008, defendant admitted the violation alleged in the petition. The dispositional hearing was conducted on December 8, 2008. The court considered the probation report, which reiterated defendant’s anger, use of “vulgar language” and disrespectful conduct toward his mother at home. The report noted that on one occasion defendant manifested his anger by breaking a dresser with a bat. The report articulated additional pertinent information about defendant: that he had “broken curfew” approximately 10 times; he “knows Norteno gang members and he occasionally spends time with them during lunch;” his teacher twice confiscated a red shirt from him; his school record reflects “unacceptable” grades, multiple “tardies,” “marginal” attendance, unverified absences, commission of “obscene acts,” failure to appear for an “on campus suspension,” other disruptive behavior, and disciplinary referrals. The report also noted mitigating factors: defendant has the support of his mother and step-father; this is his first juvenile adjudication, although he had several other referrals to the probation department; and he “does not appear to have any substance abuse issues.” The recommendation of the report was to declare defendant a ward of the court, to reside in the home of his mother.
The other referrals were closed on intake.
Following the dispositional hearing the court placed defendant on formal probation as “an indefinite ward of the court,” to reside in the home of his mother, under the supervision of the probation department. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that the trial court “abused its discretion” by adjudging him “a ward of the court under section 602 instead of granting him informal probation under section 654.2.” He adds that the court “further abused its discretion” at the dispositional hearing when it “declared wardship instead of ordering informal probation under section 725.” Defendant maintains that the “severe consequences of juvenile wardship” do not fit his “offense or social history.” He points out that the petty theft offense was “very minor,” he had no prior juvenile petitions “filed or sustained against him,” and his personal history demonstrated “at most an anger problem,” or “slightly rebellious attitude,” not “criminal” behavior.
Once a juvenile wardship petition has been filed, section 654.2 authorizes a grant of informal probation in lieu of a declaration that the juvenile is a ward of the court. (Kody P. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1033.) “Section 654.2 provides in relevant part: ‘If a petition has been filed by the prosecuting attorney to declare a minor a ward of the court under Section 602, the court may, without adjudging the minor a ward of the court and with the consent of the minor and the minor’s parents or guardian, continue any hearing on a petition for six months and order the minor to participate in a program of supervision as set forth in Section 654.... If the minor successfully completes the program of supervision, the court shall order the petition be dismissed.’ ” (Ricki J. v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 783, 789, italics omitted; see also In re C.W. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 468, 472–473.) Section 725, subdivision (a) further provides in part that if “the court has found that the minor is a person described by Section 601 or 602, by reason of the commission of an offense other than any of the offenses set forth in Section 654.3, it may, without adjudging the minor a ward of the court, place the minor on probation, under the supervision of the probation officer, for a period not to exceed six months.” (See also In re Trevor W. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 833, 838.) While an “informal supervision program is available postpetition, it is to be implemented before adjudication of the charges alleged in the petition. [Citations.] ‘In fact the purpose of the... informal supervision program is to avoid a true finding on criminal culpability which would result in a criminal record for the minor....’ [Citation.]” (In re Abdirahman S. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 963, 968.)
Section 654.2 reads in full: “(a) If a petition has been filed by the prosecuting attorney to declare a minor a ward of the court under Section 602, the court may, without adjudging the minor a ward of the court and with the consent of the minor and the minor’s parents or guardian, continue any hearing on a petition for six months and order the minor to participate in a program of supervision as set forth in Section 654. If the probation officer recommends additional time to enable the minor to complete the program, the court at its discretion may order an extension. Fifteen days prior to the final conclusion of the program of supervision undertaken pursuant to this section, the probation officer shall submit to the court a followup report of the minor’s participation in the program. The minor and the minor’s parents or guardian shall be ordered to appear at the conclusion of the six-month period and at the conclusion of each additional three-month period. If the minor successfully completes the program of supervision, the court shall order the petition be dismissed. If the minor has not successfully completed the program of supervision, proceedings on the petition shall proceed no later than 12 months from the date the petition was filed.
The juvenile “court must exercise its own discretion in its decision whether informal supervision is appropriate.” (In re Armondo A. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1189.) The factors to be considered in determining eligibility for section 654.2 informal supervision are specified in California Rules of Court, rule 5.516(b). (See Paul D. v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 838, 841.) Section 725.5 also specifies “that the court consider in addition to any other relevant and material evidence at disposition ‘the circumstances and gravity of the offense committed by the minor.’ This section and other relevant policies of juvenile court law require that the court consider ‘the broadest range of information’ in determining how best to rehabilitate a minor and afford him adequate care.” (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329.)
Those factors are: “(1) If the condition or conduct is not considered serious, whether the child has had a problem in the home, school, or community that indicates that some supervision would be desirable;
Our review of the trial court’s ruling is quite constrained. “ ‘An order of disposition, made by the juvenile court, may be reversed by the appellate court only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion....’ [Citation.] It is not the responsibility of this court to determine what we believe would be the most appropriate placement for a minor. This is the duty of the trial court, whose determination we reverse only if it has acted beyond the scope of reason.” (In re Khamphouy S. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1135.) “ ‘[A]n appellate court will not lightly substitute its decision for that rendered by the juvenile court. We must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings when there is substantial evidence to support them. [Citations.] In determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the commitment, we must examine the record presented at the disposition hearing in light of the purposes of the Juvenile Court Law.’ ” (In re Carl N. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 423, 432, quoting In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1395.)
We do not find any abuse of discretion in the present case. We agree that the petty theft offense itself may not be serious, but our examination of the totality of the evidence convinces us that the trial court’s decision to deny defendant informal supervision was the correct one. Defendant is not merely a misbehaving, “slightly rebellious” teenager, as he suggests. Not only did he commit the petty theft offense, but his history of genuinely delinquent conduct at school and at home justifies the juvenile adjudication. His inability to control his anger resulted in disciplinary problems at home and repeated instances of disruptive, aberrant conduct at school, as well as poor academic performance. Moreover, defendant admitted to Norteno gang affiliations, and had been reprimanded for wearing gang colors at school. We conclude that the trial court’s dispositional order was justified as necessary to rehabilitate defendant and afford him adequate care.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Marchiano, P. J., Margulies, J.
“(b) If the minor is eligible for Section 654 supervision, and the probation officer believes the minor would benefit from a program of supervision pursuant to this section, the probation officer may, in referring the affidavit described in Section 653.5 to the prosecuting attorney, recommend informal supervision as provided in this section.”
“(2) Whether the child and the parent or guardian seem able to resolve the matter with the assistance of the social worker or probation officer and without formal court action;
“(3) Whether further observation or evaluation by the social worker or probation officer is needed before a decision can be reached;
“(4) The attitudes of the child and the parent or guardian;
“(5) The age, maturity, and capabilities of the child;
“(6) The dependency or delinquency history, if any, of the child;
“(7) The recommendation, if any, of the referring party or agency;
“(8) The attitudes of affected persons; and
“(9) Any other circumstances that indicate that a program of informal supervision would be consistent with the welfare of the child and the protection of the public.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.516(b).)