Opinion
C043357.
10-8-2003
In re ANTOINE A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTOINE A., Defendant and Appellant.
Antoine A. (the minor), age 16, already a ward of the juvenile court for prior sustained petitions for two robberies and one armed robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022, subd. (a)), admitted a new allegation that he had driven a car without permission (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The juvenile court committed him to the California Youth Authority (CYA) for a maximum of eight years eight months. On appeal, the minor contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to CYA because he qualified for a less restrictive placement inasmuch as he had made "progress" in less restrictive custodial environments. We find no error and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[]
The Offenses
On September 16, 1998, at age 11, the minor hit 11-year-old victim C.K. and stole his bicycle. On November 5, 1998, the minor, accompanied by two other minors, one using a gun, robbed two 14 year olds of a bicycle and cash. Following the minors admission of these two robberies, one allegation of being armed (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)), and a misdemeanor charge of assault with intent to cause great bodily injury, six other counts were dismissed. The minor was committed to the Warren E. Thornton Youth Center (Youth Center). While awaiting release on electronic monitoring pending admission to the Youth Center, the minor battered a custodial officer and admitted the allegation in a subsequent petition.
On September 9, 1999, the minor robbed another 11 year old of his bicycle at a school. The minor was committed to juvenile hall for 150 days.
On November 8, 2000, following another sustained misdemeanor petition for attempted auto burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), the minor again was committed to the Youth Center.
On June 1, 2001, the minor was committed to the Sacramento Boys Ranch (Boys Ranch) for 106 days following his admission of driving a car without permission. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).)
On October 14, 2002, the minor was arrested for driving a stolen car with a "punched" ignition and a broken window. The minor had a .25-caliber magazine and slide in his pocket.
On December 23, 2002, the minor admitted driving the car without permission. In return for the minors admission of the illegal driving charge, the juvenile court dismissed another petition charging him with criminal threat, felony assault with a firearm, and misdemeanor brandishing of a firearm.
Disposition Hearing
The probation officer recommended the minor be committed to CYA after rejecting further placements at the Youth Center and Boys Ranch. The probation officer particularly relied on the minors history of prior offenses.
The minor presented a letter and comments from Arthur Johnson, executive director of Menezes Group Home, Inc., who agreed to accept the minor into its unlocked facilities in San Leandro. Greg Brown, manager of the Bridge to Success Group Home Program, sent a letter accepting the minor into its "structured daily program." The minors counsel presented a statement of the minors earnings at Marine World, a 1999 psychological evaluation, and current probation records.
The minors counsel argued that a long term structured program would direct the minor positively because he had been successful in the Youth Center and Boys Ranch. The juvenile court agreed the minor needed long-term structure and found that a CYA commitment would accomplish that goal, as well as fulfill the juvenile courts obligation to protect society from the minor. The juvenile court committed the minor to CYA based only on his felony charges.
DISCUSSION
The minor contends the trial court abused its discretion in committing him to CYA because he had made rehabilitative progress in other placements. Specifically, he relies on the juvenile courts comments that "[h]e did fairly well in the Youth Center program, but he recommitted. He did fairly well in the Boys Ranch." Relying on language in In re Pedro M. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 550, 556 (Pedro M.), the minor argues that CYA would be appropriate if the minor had made no progress in less restrictive placements. We disagree.
We do not reverse a dispositional decision of the juvenile court absent a showing the juvenile court has abused its discretion. (In re Asean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 473.) To justify a CYA commitment, there must be evidence in the record demonstrating probable benefit to the minor and evidence supporting a determination that less restrictive alternatives are ineffective or inappropriate. (In re Teofilio A. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 571, 576.) Indeed, Welfare and Institutions Code section 734 precludes a CYA commitment unless the court is fully satisfied that the minor will benefit from the commitment. The trial courts exercise of discretion in this case was entirely proper.
First, the minor has a lengthy delinquency history, beginning at the age of 11. The minor admittedly committed three separate robberies, one involving gun use by an accomplice. During the minors latest admitted offense, driving an obviously stolen car, gun parts were found in his pocket. As the juvenile court stated, "[a]nd at his age and the propensity for use of guns, and of greatest concern to me — its obvious by my question — I cant take the risk of putting him in a non-secure facility."
Second, the minor has undergone multiple placements in increasingly secure facilities, from juvenile hall to the Youth Center to the Boys Ranch. We accept that the minor began to behave better in institutional confinement over the 607 days spent in secure custody before his CYA commitment. However, his adjustment to society did not improve. His fair custodial adjustment at the Boys Ranch, touted by his counsel, did not have any rehabilitative effect on his criminal activity.
The decision in Pedro M. does not help the minors position. In that case, the appellate court affirmed the minors commitment to CYA because he had made no rehabilitative progress in a local sex offender program. (Pedro M., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 556.) Similarly, by continuing to commit crimes after repeated stays in secure structured facilities, the minor has demonstrated his own lack of rehabilitative progress.
Finally, it is apparent that the juvenile court considered other options, including the unsecured group home program, which is presumably less structured than the programs at juvenile hall, the Youth Center, and the Boys Ranch. The juvenile court specifically found both that the minor would benefit from the CYA commitment and that society would be protected from the minors criminal activity while he was there. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order committing the minor to CYA) is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, Acting P.J., HULL, J. --------------- Notes: The facts of the relevant offenses are taken from the probation officers reports. We omit any extended discussion of the dismissed allegations, uncharged crimes, and multiple misdemeanor allegations.