Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J220-509, Carolyn Caietti, Judge. Affirmed.
McINTYRE, J.
Candice D. was declared a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after admitting one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily harm, and that she personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) The juvenile court placed her in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum term of seven years. Candice contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing her to DJJ because it failed to consider alternative placements and relied solely on the seriousness of the offense and her mental health needs in determining her placement. We reject her contentions and affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Troy M., Candice's boyfriend and a West Coast Crip gang member, got into a verbal altercation with a girl at a high school they attended. Later that day, the girl heard that Troy was going to have someone beat her up, but she disregarded the rumor. The following day, Troy followed the girl on the trolley, and exited at her stop where Candice happened to be waiting. Troy pointed out the girl to 16-year-old Candice, stating "This is her." Candice walked up to the girl and punched her in the face. When the girl's mother and sister came to her aid, Candice pulled out a pocket knife. After the fight ended, the girl had a stab wound to her back, the mother had stab wounds to her head and hand, and the sister had a broken arm, swollen eye and a small cut to her nose. The People filed a section 602 petition alleging three assault counts and various enhancements arising out of the incident. Candice admitted a portion of the petition and timely appealed her commitment.
DISCUSSION
1. Legal Principles
We review the commitment order in light of the purpose of the juvenile delinquency laws, which is twofold: " '(1) to serve the "best interests" of the delinquent ward by providing care, treatment, and guidance to rehabilitate the ward and "enable him or her to be a law-abiding and productive member of his or her family and the community" and (2) to "provide for the protection and safety of the public...." ' [Citations.]" (In re Schmidt (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 694, 716.) The disposition should consider, among other things, the age of the minor, the circumstances and gravity of the offense, and the minor's previous delinquent history. (§ 725.5.)
Although the DJJ is normally a placement of last resort, there is no absolute rule that the juvenile court cannot order a DJJ commitment unless less restrictive placements have been attempted. (In re Ricky H. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 176, 183.) A DJJ commitment must be supported by substantial evidence in the record of probable benefit to the minor, and that less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate. (In re Pedro M. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 550, 555-556.) It is the responsibility of the juvenile court to determine the most appropriate placement for a minor, and we will reverse that decision only if it exceeds the bounds of reason. (In re Carl N. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 423, 432.)
2. Analysis
As a preliminary matter, Candice asks us to take judicial notice of a report prepared in 2002 and other documents detailing numerous problems with DJJ. We deny the request for judicial notice because Candice did not introduce this evidence below. (People v. Preslie (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 486, 493 [appellate court should not take judicial notice of matters that were not presented to lower court, where the appeal is based on the record before lower court].)
Candice contends that the court lacked sufficient evidence that the counselors used at the local juvenile facility would be unable to provide for her mental health needs. She asserts that despite the seriousness of her crimes, her lack of prior delinquency justified a local commitment. We disagree.
Candice attacked a girl based solely on the urging of her gangster boyfriend. She then used a knife to stab two unarmed people that came to the girl's aid. Although Candice has no prior history in the juvenile justice system, she committed a violent and serious offense that placed two of the victims in the hospital.
Candice told the evaluating psychologist that aggression was sometimes necessary to resolve personal differences, and that weapons were necessary for self protection. The psychologist concluded that Candice had average intelligence and no learning disabilities, but that she suffered from paranoia and major depressive disorder. He noted that Candice feared persecution and that she might lash out to cope with threats. He deemed it "imperative" that Candice be evaluated for psychopharmacology to address her paranoia and depression and concluded that psychotherapy was also "critical" to provide her with better strategies when she feels threatened or attacked.
The probation officer's social study report considered placing Candice in the San Diego County Probation Youthful Offender Unit (YOU) Program, but ultimately rejected this placement based on the malicious and violent nature of Candice's attack. He recommended DJJ, believing that Candice needed custodial consequences for her actions, and that this placement would provide her with needed mental health services, structure, guidance and discipline.
At the dispositional hearing, the court heard testimony from Jason Druxman, the supervising probation officer for the YOU Program. Druxman was aware of Candice's mental health issues, and stated that the YOU Program did not have any programs in place to address her major depression and paranoia. He testified that DJJ has many programs in place to help individuals with mental health issues. Although Candice's mother testified that Candice was seeing a variety of therapists while in juvenile hall, Druxman clarified that these people were counselors, not licensed mental health professionals. Counselors would not be able to prescribe the medication or provide the psychotherapy that the evaluating psychologist deemed "imperative" and "critical." Even defense counsel reluctantly admitted that the YOU Program would not be able to provide for some of Candice's longstanding and deep persecutory problems.
After considering all the evidence, the juvenile court concluded that the YOU Program was not equipped to handle Candice's mental health needs. Under the facts presented, we agree with the juvenile court's determination. The record supports the finding that a less restrictive alternative placement, such as the YOU Program, would be ineffective or inappropriate. The juvenile court's implied finding that the DJJ commitment would be of probable benefit to Candice is also supported by the social study report showing that in addition to mental health services, Candice would receive courses in substance abuse and anger management, educational services, and gang awareness training. Thus, we conclude that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in committing Candice to the DJJ.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HALLER, Acting P. J., AARON, J.