Opinion
F084726
05-19-2023
In re C.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. C.D., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Arthur Lee Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County No. JJD074251. Hugo J. Loza, Judge.
Arthur Lee Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT *[*]
STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY
C.D. appeals from the juvenile court's disposition order committing him to the Tulare County Juvenile Hall Short Term Program for 180 days. This appeal is authorized by Welfare and Institutions Code section 800 and by California Rules of Court, rule 5.585.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This appeal is from the juvenile court's disposition order committing C.D. to the Tulare County Juvenile Hall Short Term Program for 180 days after jurisdictional findings were made pursuant to section 602.
On June 21, 2022, an original section 602 petition was filed against C.D. alleging he committed one count of aggravated trespass (Pen. Code, § 602.5, subd. (b); count 1), one count of cruelty to an animal (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (b); count 2), and one count of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a); count 3), all as misdemeanors. On June 22, C.D. admitted to all three allegations.
All references to dates are to dates in 2022 unless otherwise stated.
On July 18, the court held a disposition hearing at which time the court declared C.D. a ward of the court and committed him to the Tulare County Juvenile Hall Short Term Program for 180 days. The court ordered a full psychological evaluation be conducted on C.D. and that the probation officer prepare a treatment plan. Among other terms and conditions of probation, the juvenile court ordered C.D. to cooperate with the psychiatrist and mental health personnel. The juvenile court also found that C.D.'s maximum period of confinement was two years with 30 days predisposition custody credits.
On August 1, C.D. filed a timely notice of appeal. Thereafter, on August 2, the court ordered psychological evaluation was filed in the juvenile court, and on August 25, the probation officer filed a memorandum with the juvenile court related to the court's order that a treatment plan be prepared.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Facts of the Offense
Because C.D. admitted to the three substantive offenses contained in the original petition filed against him on June 1, the facts below are derived from the probation officer's social study report filed on July 7.
On June 19, at approximately 3:40 a.m., Visalia Police Department officers were dispatched to a residence regarding a family disturbance. When officers arrived, they observed C.D. inside the residence with lots of debris. When officers attempted to make contact with him, he removed his clothes until he was nude. Thereafter, the officers were able to talk him into coming out of the residence. As he was exiting the home, he approached one of the officers in an aggressive manner, which prompted the officer to draw his taser and order C.D. to get on the ground. C.D. did not comply and began to go back inside the residence when the officer detained him by using a control hold.
After C.D. was detained, his father spoke with the officers. Father told the officers that C.D. had been residing with his grandfather for the past three weeks due to issues C.D. had been having at father's home. Father said that on the evening of June 19, he had been sleeping in the living room when he awoke and observed C.D. inside the home. Father asked C.D. to leave, but he refused. Father said C.D. began going through closets and taking items out. Father and C.D.'s stepmother were eventually able to push C.D. out of the residence into the backyard.
Father said once C.D. was in the backyard, father saw stepmother exit the home. She had observed C.D. strangling a small puppy. Thereafter, a fight ensued between C.D., father, and stepmother. Father and stepmother were able to wrest the puppy from C.D. and lock themselves inside their home. However, C.D. used a metal baseball bat to break a sliding glass door and reenter the home. After C.D. reentered the home, father called the police.
Evidence Presented at the Disposition Hearing
On July 7, the probation officer filed a probation report with the court regarding a social study of C.D. and dispositional recommendations. The probation officer reported father told him that when he was involved in the confrontation with C.D. on June 19, C.D. was uncontrollable while displaying bizarre behavior. According to father, C.D. was" 'looking through' him, as if not coherent to the reality around him." The probation officer stated in his report that he was concerned for C.D.'s current mental health status because C.D.'s recent behavior was completely out of character for him. The probation officer concluded C.D. "ha[d] no prior documented criminal activity," "had shown he was responsible for his actions," and "may benefit from a psychological evaluation, medication, cognitive behavioral treatment and substance abuse treatment." Accordingly, the probation officer recommended to the court that C.D. be adjudged a ward of the court and placed on probation while remaining in the care and custody of either his father or grandfather. The probation officer also recommended standard terms and conditions of probation, including but not limited to being placed on the electronic monitoring program for 30 days, completing 80 hours of community service, and participating in substance abuse counseling, among other terms and conditions of probation.
At the July 7 initial disposition hearing, the juvenile court inquired as to whether C.D. had been seen by mental health personnel. According to the probation officer, while C.D. had been seen by a psychiatrist on July 6, the probation officer was unsure whether the meeting with mental health had been taken into consideration in the probation/social study report filed by the probation officer on July 7. Thereafter, the court ordered the probation officer to prepare a formal probation report with regard to the mental health evaluation the court had previously ordered.
On July 18, the court resumed C.D.'s disposition hearing. C.D.'s counsel requested the court send C.D. home on probation with mental health counseling, arguing that home on probation was appropriate in C.D.'s case because there had been no evidence any mental health services had been attempted with him out of custody. Furthermore, according to counsel, placement in a juvenile hall program would not be the least restrictive placement under the circumstances. However, the prosecutor argued that the more appropriate disposition in this matter would be for the court to order C.D. committed to the Tulare County Juvenile Hall Short Term Program.
The court commented that several unsuccessful attempts had been made to see if C.D. would cooperate with juvenile authorities. The court concurred that C.D. had a significant mental health issue and the court would have significant concerns about returning C.D. home without treatment. Father agreed with the court's assessment. Thereafter, the court concluded that, of all the options available, the only option available to the court was the short-term program, which would give C.D. the opportunity to begin cooperating by being seen by a psychiatrist and seeing if medication would benefit him. The court noted C.D. had refused to come to a prior July 14 disposition hearing because he "was not doing well." In addition, on July 14, the probation officer filed a memorandum with the court indicating that a psychiatrist had attempted to meet with C.D. on June 23 to perform a psychiatric evaluation, but C.D. refused to meet with the psychiatrist.
The court further informed the parties that C.D. needed to cooperate with mental health personnel to have a psychological report prepared so probation could move forward with a case plan determining the best course of action. The court again stated that because up to this point C.D. had been uncooperative, C.D. would be a danger to himself and others were he to be sent home or placed in a group home.
At the conclusion of the court's observations and comments, the court adjudged C.D. a ward of the court and placed him under the probation officer's supervision to complete the short-term program for up to 180 days. The court further ordered C.D. to be referred to a psychiatrist for a psychiatric assessment regarding medications and for a full psychological evaluation, among other terms and conditions of probation. The court also ordered the probation officer to provide a recommendation regarding a treatment plan.
Post Disposition Follow-Up
On July 21, Dr. Suresh Babu Kurra performed a psychiatric evaluation on C.D.; Dr. Kurra's report was filed with the court on August 2. The report indicated C.D. had been diagnosed with substance induced psychosis, likely induced as a result of C.D. using marijuana laced with something, probably bath salts. Dr. Kurra observed that C.D. came from a broken family and may have feelings of rejection by both parents. According to Dr. Kurra, C.D. also suffered from underlying depression. Dr. Kurra suggested C.D. may benefit from counseling to improve his coping skills and his relationship with his father. Dr. Kurra found C.D. may also benefit from an antidepressant and, if he has a history of bizarre behavior, he may benefit from antipsychotic medication.
On August 25, the probation officer filed a memorandum with the court indicating that C.D.'s psychiatric evaluation had been completed and he had been prescribed a daily dose of Zyprexa. The memorandum documented Dr. Kurra's reevaluated C.D. on August 11, at which time he appeared to be adjusting well and taking the prescribed medication daily. Dr. Kurra recommended C.D. continue taking the medication daily to maintain its benefits. The probation officer further reported that on August 24, Program Specialist Aguilar met with C.D. to review the "MDT Action Plan." Aguilar reported that father made it clear he did not want C.D. to return to his home. Aguilar further reported that C.D. had been doing well in school since being committed to the short-term program and was on track to graduate from high school. The school reported no behavioral concerns. C.D. was also participating in counseling with Phoenix House. According to the counselor, C.D. may have been experiencing some delusions, which the counselor reported may be in response to trauma. The probation officer's report concluded that C.D. was participating in his programs and receiving services to address his needs, and when he is transitioned to Aftercare, it is recommended that he be ordered to be placed on a GPS monitor to assist him with stability and curfew compliance.
On August 31, the court held a review hearing at which time the court and counsel discussed the prospect of C.D.'s placement with a family member after being released from the short-term program.
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
C.D.'s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating C.D. was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on April 10, 2023, we invited C.D. to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to C.D.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's July 18, 2022, disposition order is affirmed.
[*] Before Levy, Acting P. J., Pena, J. and Snauffer, J.