Opinion
F084040
11-21-2022
In re J.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.V., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
Candice L. Christensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Clara M. Levers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Super. Ct. No. JJD073254 of Tulare County. John P. Bianco, Judge.
Candice L. Christensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Clara M. Levers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT[*]
Minor J.V. contends on appeal that the juvenile court abused its discretion and violated his rights to due process in committing him to a mid-term program because (1) the court's concern about minor's gang association was unjustified, and (2) the court did not know whether gang counseling could be completed in the short-term program. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On December 21, 2020, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a second amended juvenile wardship petition, pursuant to Welfare &Institutions Code section 602, alleging that minor had committed felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1). It was further alleged that minor inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)).
All statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
On January 13, 2021, minor denied the allegations. Minor failed to appear at a hearing on April 21, 2021, and a bench warrant was issued.
On December 7, 2021, the Kern County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (§ 602) alleging one count of carrying a concealed firearm (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(6); count 1). The next day, minor appeared before the Kern County Juvenile Court and denied the allegation.
On January 4, 2022, the Kern County wardship petition was amended to add count 2, misdemeanor resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Minor admitted count 2, and the Kern County Juvenile Court granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss count 1. The court then transferred the case to Tulare County for disposition after determining that it was minor's county of residence.
On January 10, 2022, the Tulare County bench warrant was recalled. On February 1, 2022, after the victim in the Tulare County case testified at a contested jurisdiction hearing, the Tulare County Juvenile Court found the allegation of the second amended petition true beyond a reasonable doubt. A dispositional hearing was set to include the transferred Kern County case.
The probation officer filed a report on February 14, 2022, recommending that minor be placed on probation in his mother's home with the requirements that he attend and participate in school, participate in substance abuse counseling while abiding by search and test terms, have no further contact with the victim, abide by a 9:00 p.m. curfew, and pay a restitution fine.
On February 15, 2022, at a dispositional hearing, minor was adjudged a ward of the court and placed in the mid-term program for 365 days. The maximum term of confinement was calculated to be six years four months, and minor was awarded 80 days of custody credits.
On March 8, 2022, minor filed a notice of appeal.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Tulare County Offense
On December 3, 2020, a 17 year old was walking through a field on the way to his cousin's house. He turned and saw a black car behind him. As it approached him, it slowed and several people got out, including minor and another youth, I.C. Minor and I.C. began beating the 17-year-old victim, while another youth recorded a video of it on a phone.
The video recording showed I.C. beat the victim with a baseball bat, causing him to lose consciousness and fall to the ground. When the victim got up again and tried to run, minor tackled him, punched him in the head, and held him down while I.C. proceeded to hit him again with the baseball bat several times. Because of the assault, the victim's hand was "cut open," requiring several stitches and medication.
The victim later testified at the contested jurisdictional hearing about this offense that minor held him down and hit him during the assault, while I.C. hit him with a baseball bat.
Minor admitted to the allegation in the Kern County petition. Accordingly, the factual summary for the Kern County offense is derived from the probation report.
On December 3, 2021, at 9:11 p.m., Delano police officers responded to a report of a suspicious person knocking on an elderly couple's apartment door. Upon their arrival, an officer saw minor walking away from a nearby apartment. The officer asked to talk to him, but minor replied," 'I didn't do anything, sir.'" The officer told minor to stop, but minor walked away, around an adjacent apartment building, out of view. The officer searched the area where he had been standing and found a loaded .45-caliber Hi-Point handgun, and minor was taken into custody.
Officers discovered an outstanding warrant for minor's arrest in Tulare County when they conducted a records check. The officer then asked minor what he had been doing, and he replied that he had been "hanging out" at a friend's house. When asked about why minor had walked away from the officer, minor stated that he" 'wanted [the officer] to chase [him].'" Later, minor said that the Kern County arrest, unlike the Tulare County arrest, was the result of "wrong place at the wrong time" because he had simply been present in the area to smoke weed.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends the juvenile court abused its discretion and violated his rights to due process in committing him to a mid-term program because (1) the court's concern about minor's gang association was unjustified, and (2) the court did not know whether gang counseling could be completed in the short-term program. The People disagree, and alternatively, contend any error was harmless. We agree with the People that the juvenile court did not err.
I. Gang Undertones
Minor first contends that the juvenile court's disposition committing him to the mid-term program was an abuse of discretion because minor did not have an issue with gangs. He argues that the juvenile court's statement that his case had gang undertones was unjustified because the petition does not allege gang involvement, the prosecution's argument during the evidentiary hearing was devoid of any reference to gangs, and the record does not indicate that minor is a gang associate or engages in gang behavior. We disagree.
A. Background
Minor's probation report included a summary of the police report from minor's assault offense. The summary of the police report stated that the victim identified himself and the other perpetrator of the assault, I.C., as "Southern" gang members. The victim stated that I.C. had sent the victim threatening texts shortly before the assault, when the victim declined to denounce "Northern" gangs when I.C. demanded he do so. The summary also stated that I.C., when arrested and questioned about the incident, admitted he was associated with "Southern" gang members, and that when I.C. and minor saw the victim walking, they decided to assault the victim because the victim's brother, who is a "Northern" gang member, shot at I.C. two months prior.
At minor's dispositional hearing, the juvenile court stated its intent to place minor in a mid-term program. Defense counsel requested that the court impose a short-term program instead. The court asked whether the short-term program had gang counseling similar to that offered in the mid-term program, stating:
"[COURT:] Is there a program in the short-term that would provide the minor with the gang education? Can he successfully complete the gang education in the short-term program?
"[COURT:] It's my understanding that the mid-term program is more appropriate in gang cases.
"[PROBATION OFFICER:] Your Honor, I'm not sure we have a program in short-term for gangs. I'd have to inquire."
The juvenile court did not request that the probation officer investigate the issue. Before rendering a disposition order, the court addressed minor, stating:
"I have a hard time understanding why you'd do what you did to that person and assist in having him beat up, someone who is a friend ..
"As I indicated to you at trial, this is a clear example of principal and accessory. You're just as responsible for the injury that occurred to the victim as the individual who was swinging the bat. And that situation is a serious offense, that is, not simply getting into a fight, that's using a deadly weapon in a fight. I'm concerned you still don't understand the gravity of the offense that you committed.
"I'm concerned that, as I indicated, there are undertones in this case that this was done for the benefit of the gang even though you were not charged with that offense. You were hanging around ... gang members. And had you been a year older, had you been 18, you'd likely be looking at a State prison commitment based on this offense. [¶] . [¶]
"The Court has read and considered the probation report."
The juvenile court adjudged minor a ward of the court and placed him in the mid-term program for 365 days.
B. Law
"After finding that a minor is a [ward of the court], the court shall hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition to be made of the minor. The court shall receive in evidence the social study of the minor made by the probation officer and any other relevant and material evidence that may be offered, including any written or oral statement offered by the victim .. In any judgment and order of disposition, the court shall state that the social study made by the probation officer has been read and that the social study and any statement has been considered by the court." (§ 706.)
When determining the appropriate disposition in a delinquency proceeding, the juvenile courts are required to consider "(1) the age of the minor, (2) the circumstances and gravity of the offense committed by the minor, and (3) the minor's previous delinquent history." (§ 725.5.) The court is required to "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 (Robert H.).)
The standard of review in juvenile commitment decisions is abuse of discretion. (In re Joey G. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 343, 346.)" 'A [juvenile] court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.'" (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1288.) Courts of Appeal reviewing juvenile court dispositions "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." (In re Lorenza M. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 49, 53 (Lorenza M.).)" 'Substantial evidence' is evidence of ponderable legal significance, evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value.'" (Roddenberry v. Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 651.)
"' "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 Oscar A. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 750, 756.) In reviewing a commitment determination, we remember that" 'the primary goal behind maintaining separate courts and procedures for adults and minors is to ensure that juvenile offenders who have not yet become hardened criminals receive treatment and rehabilitation.'" (In re Carlos E. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1542.) That goal is reflected in the mandate that juvenile courts consider "the protection of the public as well as the rehabilitation of the minor" in reaching a disposition. (Ibid.) Accordingly, "when we assess the record in light of the purposes of the Juvenile Court Law [citation], we evaluate the exercise of discretion with punishment and public safety and protection in mind." (Lorenza M., supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at p. 58.)
C. Analysis
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by concluding there were gang undertones to minor's offense.
Unlike the jurisdictional phase of juvenile court proceedings, where the Evidence Code applies, "[n]o statute expressly subjects [the dispositional] phase to the Evidence Code." (In re Eddie M. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 480, 487; § 701.) Moreover, the juvenile court is required to "consider 'the broadest range of information' in determining how best to rehabilitate a minor and afford him adequate care." (Robert H., supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1329.)
The juvenile court properly relied on the probation report in determining that minor's offense had gang undertones. Probation department reports prepared for the dispositional phase of a juvenile delinquency case are similar to reports prepared for adult sentencing proceedings. In the latter proceedings, "courts routinely rely [on] hearsay statements contained in probation reports to make factual findings concerning the details of the crime. These findings, in turn, guide the court's sentencing decision-a decision which has a great impact on the defendant's liberty interest." (People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 212-213.)
Although the Evidence Code applies in jurisdictional hearings, In re Vincent G. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 238, 243 explained that, "[i]n juvenile dependency cases it is settled that hearsay evidence, which would be inadmissible at a jurisdiction hearing, may nevertheless be considered at a dispositional hearing." The court extended the reasoning applicable to dependency cases to delinquency cases, noting "[t]here is no correlative statute making the Evidence Code generally applicable to a dispositional hearing," and indeed, section 706 requires the court to admit into evidence the minor's social study report made by the probation officer and any" 'other relevant and material evidence [that] may be offered.'" (Vincent G., at p. 244.) Practically speaking, "[a] probation officer could not make an investigation and report ... if restricted to the rules of evidence. Much of the prior record and history of a defendant, as well as the circumstances surrounding the crime, are hearsay and can be investigated and reported [on] only by the use of hearsay information." (People v. Valdivia (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 145, 148.) By permitting the use of a probation department report at the juvenile dispositional hearing, "the Legislature necessarily endorsed the use of multiple-level-hearsay statements that do not otherwise fall within a hearsay exception." (People v. Otto, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 208.)
In this case, we see no prejudicial error in the juvenile court's review and consideration of the probation report's summary of the police report for the purpose of ascertaining the assault had gang undertones, because the court could review and consider the probation report's summary of the police report, and the probation officer could include in the report a summary of the victim's and I.C.'s statements regarding their association with gangs and the gang-related motivation for the assault in which minor participated as an accessory. Consistent with section 706, the summary of the police report is clearly relevant and material evidence offered on the question of minor's proper disposition.
Accordingly, as 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" (Lorenza M., supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at p. 53), we conclude the juvenile court's determination during the dispositional hearing that minor's offense had gang undertones, even though he was not adjudicated to have committed a "gang" offense, was not an abuse of discretion.
II. Lack of Information About Gang Counseling
Minor next contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion and violated his right to a fair hearing when committing him to the mid-term program because it lacked sufficient information to decide between the mid-term and short-term programs. We disagree.
A. Background
Minor's probation report discussed education and drug counseling, and recommended probation. The report also included a summary of the police report, as discussed above, including the victim's and I.C.'s statements about the gang-related motivation for the assault. It did not discuss gang counseling.
The report noted that minor last attended school out of custody in May 2020, and he was significantly behind in his education. The minor stated that he was in the 12th grade, but only completed 20 credits and needed 130 more to graduate. A request for information was sent to his last school, but no response was received. With regards to drugs, minor openly admitted to having an issue with marijuana. He requested that substance abuse counseling and testing terms be included in his probation.
The juvenile court also knew that minor had committed the assault against the victim, left town when he missed his court date instead of attempting to resolve the situation, did not take responsibility for his conduct ("[h]e pointed out he did not hit the victim in the assault and did not fully understand how the matter was found true against him," and had been doing well in the school at the juvenile detention facility.
During the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court stated its tentative decision was to commit minor to the mid-term program, rather than follow the probation report's recommendation of probation. When defense counsel asked the court to commit minor to the short-term program instead of the mid-term program, the court asked the probation officer whether gang counseling was available in the short-term program. When the probation officer stated that he did not know the answer, the juvenile court proceeded to adjudge minor a ward of the court and placed him in the mid-term program for 365 days, stating:
"What I want to do is make sure that you get the tools and education you need so that you don't become involved in the system. One of those tools would be the ability to complete your high school education or get as close as possible to a GED, certainly with a program and then aftercare.
"The Court believes that you'd be able to complete your general education so that you have a high school diploma, that you get the appropriate counseling that I think you need, and also the training with regard to gangs. I believe the most appropriate and least restrictive disposition is to place you in the mid-term program."
B. Law
The juvenile court has broad discretion to fashion a disposition to meet the minor's needs and protect society. The court's discretion must be exercised in light of the purpose of the juvenile law. (In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 13951396.) It must consider the "broadest range of information" in determining how to best rehabilitate a minor and offer him adequate care. (Robert H., supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1329; § 725.5.) "In determining the judgment and order to be made in any case in which the minor is found to be a [ward of the court], the court shall consider, in addition to other relevant and material evidence, (1) the age of the minor, (2) the circumstances and gravity of the offense committed by the minor, and (3) the minor's previous delinquent history." (§ 725.5.)
To ensure the necessity of a juvenile commitment placement, there must be evidence supporting a determination that less restrictive alternatives are ineffective or inappropriate. (§ 202, subd. (a).) Section 202, subdivision (b) mandates that delinquent minors "receive care, treatment, and guidance that is consistent with their best interest, that holds them accountable for their behavior, and that is appropriate for their circumstances." (§ 202, subd. (b).) "A similar mandate appears in rule 5.790(h) of the California Rules of Court. That rule provides that, where a minor's welfare requires that he be removed from his parent's custody (§ 726, subd. (a)(3)) ... '[t]he decision regarding choice of placement must take into account . [t]hat the setting is the environment best suited to meet the child's special needs and best interest.' (Rule 5.790(h).)" (In re Carlos J., (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 6 (Carlos J.).)
All references to rules are to the California Rules of Court, unless otherwise noted.
"In order for a juvenile court to make the determination of . 'appropriate' treatment in a minor's 'best interest' required by section 202, subdivision (b), and the determination of whether the [commitment] is 'best suited' to meet a minor's 'special needs and best interest' required . there must be some specific evidence in the record of the programs . expected to benefit a minor." (Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 10.) "[T]here is no rule that . a [more restrictive] placement cannot be ordered unless less restrictive placements have been attempted .." (In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1159.)
Reviewing courts examining juvenile court decisions "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." (Lorenza M., supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at p. 53.)" 'A trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.'" (In re Khalid B., supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1288.)" '" '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.'" '" (Ibid.)
Minor contends Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 applies to any abuse of discretion by the juvenile court in assigning minor to the mid-term program, while the People contend People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 applies, but that any error is harmless under either Watson or Chapman. We need not resolve that dispute because we conclude that the juvenile court did not err.
C. Analysis
Minor contends that the court abused its discretion because not knowing whether gang counseling was available meant the court did not consider the broadest range of information in sentencing him to the mid-term program. The People disagree, and contend, alternatively, that any error was harmless. We agree with the People that the court did not abuse its discretion.
The juvenile court's statement shows that it relied on multiple factors when determining that the mid-term program was the best choice to rehabilitate a minor and afford him adequate care. As the juvenile court explained, its primary focus was that the mid-term program would best allow minor to further his education by completing or almost completing a GED program so that he could obtain his high school diploma, in addition to also getting him other counseling that he needed, including gang counseling. Further, as discussed above, it was not an abuse of discretion for the juvenile court to consider the gang undertones of minor's offense in finding that minor would benefit from gang counseling during his commitment.
While the probation report and the juvenile court's exchange with the probation officer show that the court did not have information about whether gang counseling was offered in the short-term program, there was specific evidence on the record supporting the court's determination that the mid-term program would provide expected benefits to minor, since it would allow minor to best further his education, and also provide him drug, gang and other counseling. (Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 10.) Although the court did not wait for the probation officer to determine whether gang counseling was also offered in the short-term program, there is no requirement that the juvenile court attempt the least restrictive placement if such a placement would not meet the minor's needs. (Ibid.; In re Nicole H., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 1159; see § 202, subd. (a); rule 5.790(h).) The court's statement about minor's placement in the mid-term program shows that the court considered, but rejected, short-term placement for minor because of the court's concern about minor obtaining his high school diploma, and that his concern about gang counseling was secondary to his concern about minor's education. The trial court concluded that a lesser placement would not meet minor's educational needs.
Accordingly, as specific evidence on the record supports the court's determination that it expected the mid-term program to benefit minor and that the court considered and rejected less restrictive alternatives, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by committing minor to the mid-term program.
DISPOSITION
The disposition order is affirmed.
[*]Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Pena, J. and Snauffer, J.