Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J06-00120
Swager, J.
Following a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court continued defendant Alejandro L., as a ward of the court and committed him to the Division of Juvenile Facilities of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DJF) (formerly known as the California Youth Authority) for a maximum term of four years.
Defendant objects to his commitment to the DJF, arguing that the court abused its discretion by not placing him in a less restrictive county-level program. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 9, 2006, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that defendant, then age 15, had unlawfully possessed a switchblade knife. (Pen. Code, § 653k.) He was placed on probation with home supervision, and was ordered to avoid known gang members and refrain from possessing any gang-related paraphernalia. Over the next year, defendant committed four probation violations. The violations included failure to report, possessing gang paraphernalia and associating with gang members, driving without a license, and possessing alcohol.
On May 27, 2007, defendant and four teenage boys were driving an SUV in Byron Hot Springs at night when they spotted three young men walking down a road. They decided to rob the men. Using his hood to cover his face, defendant yelled at the men to get on the ground and give up their possessions. When the men did not immediately respond, he asked them if they wanted to get shot. He then held up a gun and fired a shot in the air. The three men complied and turned over their belongings. He ordered them to turn around and fired another shot in the air before leaving. As they were driving away, the boys noticed a Dodge Durango that the three men had driven to the location. Realizing that they had the car’s keys, the boys decided to take the Durango as well. They were soon stopped by sheriff deputies and defendant was arrested after running away from the Durango.
On May 30, 2007, a supplemental petition was filed, alleging that defendant had committed three counts of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)) and two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). Each count included a firearm enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The petition was subsequently amended to include counts of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664), vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851), grand theft person (Pen Code, § 487, subd. (c)), and attempted grand theft person (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (c), 664).
On July 11, 2007, defendant pled no contest to one count of second degree robbery, one count of grand theft person, and one count of attempted grand theft person. He also he admitted a firearm enhancement. The court dismissed the remaining counts and allegations.
On September 4, 2007, the juvenile court committed defendant to the DJF for a maximum term of four years. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
Our review of the juvenile court’s placement of defendant is guided by established standards. “The decision of the juvenile court may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion in committing a minor to [DJF]. [Citations.] An 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 Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1395; see also In re Lorenza M. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 49, 53.)
II. Defendant’s Commitment to the DJF Was Not an Abuse of Discretion
In determining placement in a juvenile delinquency case, the juvenile court focuses on the dual concerns of the best interests of the minor and the need to protect the public. In arriving at a disposition, the juvenile court considers the probation officer’s report and any other relevant and material evidence that may be offered. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202, subd. (d); In re Jimmy P. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1679, 1684.) It is established that proper consideration must be given to less restrictive programs before a commitment to DJF is made. (In re L. S. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1100, 1105.) “A [DJF] commitment may be considered, however, without previous resort to less restrictive placements.” (In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396.)
Welfare and Institutions Code section 202, subdivision (b), provides, in part: “Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a consequence of delinquent conduct shall, in conformity with the interests of public safety and protection, 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. This guidance may include punishment that is consistent with the rehabilitative objectives of this chapter.”
Defendant complains that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the DJF because the probation report had recommend that he be placed at a county-level boys’ ranch and there was insufficient evidence that a ranch placement would be inappropriate or ineffective. At the disposition hearing, defendant’s probation officer testified that a primary reason for the recommendation in the report was that defendant had not yet exhausted all the available county-level rehabilitation options.
The juvenile court carefully reviewed defendant’s record, the probation report, letters from defendant’s family and friends, and the testimony of the witnesses. The court also heard and considered evidence regarding the less restrictive alternative ranch placements, but concluded that they would not provide sufficient safeguards for the community and that defendant would benefit from being placed at the DJF.
A former probation department supervisor testified that all three county ranch facilities had gang diversion programs, and expressed the opinion that Fouts Springs would be the most appropriate program for defendant. He also testified that all of the ranches were located in fairly remote areas, but they were not fenced and the staff was armed only with pepper spray. He noted that Fouts Springs does not have separate facilities for gang members, and there is a public campground about a mile away. He also testified that last year there had been nine escapes from the facility.
In contrast, defendant’s probation officer testified that the DJF facility in Stockton is locked, is patrolled by armed guards, and has a policy of separating gang members to avoid fighting. The DJF also offers the same types of classes that the probation report recommended for defendant, including substance abuse and gang awareness, as well as school. The probation officer did not believe that the DJF would be an inappropriate placement for defendant.
The record review showed that defendant’s crimes did indeed involve serious risk to public safety and that his criminal behavior had escalated rapidly even while on supervised probation. As the juvenile court reiterated, defendant had brandished and fired a loaded gun at night in the course of robbing three men in a remote location. The court reasonably concluded defendant was a potential threat to public safety and that there was a risk he would seek to escape from a ranch facility, posing a danger to campers or others in the surrounding community. While he was not charged with any gang enhancements, there also was substantial evidence of defendant’s continuing involvement in Norteño gang-related activity.
The evidence also supports the court’s conclusion that defendant would benefit from the programs and classes offered at the DJF. There was testimony that these programs and classes were comparable to the ones at the county-level placements. Even assuming defendant is correct that the DJF’s programs would not be “more effective [than the county programs] in helping appellant leave the gang life behind” him, other factors support the more restrictive option, including the DJF’s practice of segregating gang wards by affiliation.
We note the court was particularly troubled by several letters that defendant sent to a Norteño gang member in San Jose while he was awaiting disposition in juvenile hall. In the letters, defendant appears to offer to engage in future criminal activities on behalf of the gang in order to “earn some more stripes.” These letters, combined with the other evidence presented to the court, constitute substantial evidence in support of the court’s decision to balance defendant’s rehabilitative needs against the safety of the public by committing him to the DJF. We note that the court’s careful and complete review of the evidence is manifested by its discretionary choice to set the maximum term of confinement at four years, which is three years two months less than the statutory maximum. There was no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: Marchiano, P. J., Margulies, J.