Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Super. Ct.No. J210456 Douglas N. Gericke, Judge.
Daphne Sykes Scott and Patrick DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lilia E. Garcia, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Elizabeth S. Voorhies, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P. J.
INTRODUCTION
Minor Gilbert R. challenges his commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) as an abuse of discretion. We will affirm.
Both parties refer to the facility as the California Youth Authority or CYA, as did the juvenile court and the court clerk. We will use the currently correct designation, DJJ. (Gov. Code, §§ 12838, subd. (a), 12838.3; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1710, subd. (a).)
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Present Offense:
On September 25, 2006, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), petition alleging that minor had committed carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)) and second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).
The allegations arose out of an incident on September 21, 2006, in which minor, with four companions, attacked a couple in a park in Fontana. The victims, N.I. and A.M., were walking back from the park restrooms when minor asked them if they had any “weed.” When A.M. replied that they did not, minor hit him on the side of his head with a closed fist and A.M. yelled to N.I. to “run.” N.I. got into her car and attempted to drive away, but minor got into the passenger seat and began to punch at her. N.I. got out of her car, grabbed her purse, and began to run through the park. Some of the assailants chased her. One hit her in the head with a bottle and one grabbed the back of her pants, threw her to the ground, and began kicking her. N.I. was able to get away, but looked back as she ran and saw her vehicle being driven away. Meanwhile, A.M. ran home to his parents, who went with him to look for N.I. After they located her, A.M. called the police. The police later found pieces of what appeared to be a vodka bottle at the scene.
N.I.’s vehicle was located on Liberty Parkway, where it had crashed. Minor, who had tried to run away from the car and jump over a wall after it crashed, was being held by two civilians who happened to be German police officers. When the Fontana police officer who arrested minor placed him in handcuffs, he began to struggle, thrashing his shoulders from side to side and trying to separate his hands. As a result, he had to be placed in a “control hold” and escorted to the patrol unit.
Later, minor told a probation officer that he had been “kickin’ it in the park, drink in’” vodka with friends prior to the incident, but that he did not usually drink. He said he knew what he had done was wrong and that it “was my only slip up in a long time.” He told the probation officer, “I regret every single thing I did. I regret it. I’ll prove I’ll do good. I’ll complete everything I’m supposed to be doing. I feel bad.”
Minor was attending 11th grade at Valley View continuation school. He had twice been suspended for fighting. He said he had first drunk alcohol when he was 15 years old and had last smoked marijuana about six or eight months earlier. Minor’s mother said his behavior at home was “good.” She wanted him placed on probation or sent to placement. According to the mother, minor’s father had been released from custody in July 2006 and was now serving three years’ federal probation.
Past History:
Minor’s other major “slip up” had occurred in 2005 when he was involved in another fight in a Fontana park. At the time of that incident, minor had a handgun, a “Baikal .380” with five rounds of ammunition in the magazine, which he was apparently pointing at people. Later, minor tried to dispose of the handgun by tossing it out a car window. In his statement to the arresting officer, defendant first said that one of his companions had a semiautomatic handgun, which he was waving at people; that the gun in question was not his; and that he never pointed the gun at anyone.
Later, minor told a probation officer that he had decided to go to the park because he heard there was going to be a fight; that he had found the gun, which belonged to his parents, at his home; and that he took the gun to the park because he wanted to be a “tough guy.” Minor said he felt very bad about his actions and realized that he had made a big mistake. His parents’ forms of discipline were effective and he thought they had good control over him. He was in ninth grade at Etiwanda High School and believed he was maintaining a “C” average. He had never been expelled from school and had been suspended only once when he and another student “‘got loud’ at lunchtime, because they were talking about fighting.” He said he had first tried beer when he was 13 years old and had experimented with smoking marijuana several months earlier. He said he wanted to prove to the court that he could do well and that he had no plans to break the law again.
Minor’s parents claimed to be “shocked” by his behavior. He did not use alcohol or drugs and they believed their discipline was effective and that they had good control over him. They had no idea why he would have taken the gun to the park but believed that he had learned his lesson.
On March 8, 2005, minor was declared a ward of the juvenile court and placed on probation after the juvenile court sustained a felony allegation that he was a minor in possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12101, subd. (a)(1).) On March 8, 2006, minor successfully completed probation and the case was dismissed. At a special hearing on July 24, the allegation was reduced to a misdemeanor. The events of the current offense followed a little less than two months later.
Disposition:
On October 24, 2006, minor admitted the robbery and the juvenile court dismissed the carjacking allegation. A full probation report filed on that date, and a short supplement filed on November 8, recommended that he be placed where he could receive anger management, substance abuse, impulsivity control, and victim awareness services. DJJ consultant Antenucci told the probation officer that if referred to DJJ, minor would be confined for three years and would receive these services. He would be subject to DJJ jurisdiction until he reached his 25th birthday.
Two probation officers testified at minor’s contested disposition hearing on November 27, 2006. The probation officer who wrote the disposition report, and who had reviewed minor’s record and interviewed him and his mother, testified that her original recommendation had been that minor be sent to DJJ. Her opinion was based on the nature and severity of his offenses, including the injuries sustained by the two victims, the fact of the robbery, the escalating nature of his behavior, minor’s leadership role and the use of alcohol in the current offense, and the fact that a gun was involved in the 2005 offense. Because her supervisors felt that minor should be sent to a placement facility rather than DJJ, placement was the final recommendation of the report. However, she still considered DJJ the appropriate disposition.
One of the investigating probation officer’s supervisors also testified. Based on his review of the disposition reports in the 2005 and current cases, the supervisor felt that a “lower level” placement could be found that would serve minor’s needs, but he admitted that none was “locked” or as “secure” as DJJ. Under direct questioning from the juvenile court, the supervisor said remote placements could sometimes be found outside California, as in Reno, Nevada. Although most placements lasted from six months to a year “at the most,” the supervisor thought he had heard of some that could last up to two years.
At the end of the hearing, the juvenile court remanded minor to DJJ for a period of five years. In explaining its decision, the juvenile court emphasized that minor had a “propensity for violence and presents a danger to other persons.” His current offense involved acting as part of a group of five assailants who attacked two victims, leaving one with a permanent scar on his face, and both with lingering fear and trauma. “[W]e’re dealing with an extremely serious offense.” His prior offense had involved pointing a loaded firearm at others, at night, in a park. And despite having successfully completing probation in the first case just six months earlier, he was now back in the juvenile court with another serious offense.
Minor, the juvenile court further noted, had multiple rehabilitative service needs: he was failing in school and needed educational services; he also needed victim awareness and substance abuse programs. The juvenile court was required to choose a place that could provide these services and protect the public at the same time. Its other concern was the length of time available for these services. Placement would most likely be available for six months to a year, while a DJJ commitment, according to the probation report, would be considerably longer. The juvenile court stated, “I believe that the seriousness of the crimes, coupled with his personal rehabilitative needs and the available programming do mitigate [sic] in favor of the commitment to the youth authority.”
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review:
“We review a [DJJ] commitment decision only for abuse of discretion, and indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court.” (In re Asean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 473; see also In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396.) “There is no abuse of discretion where the commitment is supported by substantial evidence on the record.” (In re Kevin F. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 178, 186; see also In re Tyrone O. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 145, 151.)
DJJ Commitment:
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.) The juvenile court may consider a commitment to DJJ without first having tried less restrictive placements. (In re Asean D., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 473.) “Finally, the 1984 amendments to the juvenile court law reflected an increased emphasis on punishment as a tool of rehabilitation, and a concern for the safety of the public. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “Nonetheless, there must be evidence in the record demonstrating both a probable benefit to the minor by a [DJJ] commitment and the inappropriateness or ineffectiveness of less restrictive alternatives. [Citations.]” (In re Angela M., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.)
Here, the juvenile court carefully reviewed minor’s record, the probation reports, and the differing testimony of two witnesses who disagreed with one another. The court directly questioned one witness to confirm the length of time available for rehabilitative services under the proposed alternate dispositions, and it listened respectfully to argument from both sides before issuing a decision.
The record review showed that minor’s crimes did indeed involve serious risk to public safety. As the juvenile court reiterated, in the 2005 matter, minor had pointed a loaded gun at people, at night, in a park. In the current offense, minor had injured two victims; one, at least, was left with what was likely to be a permanent scar on his face and both were suffering from residual fear. In both cases, minor minimized his own involvement and gave incompatible stories about his use of alcohol and marijuana. All this combined to provide substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s decision to balance minor’s rehabilitative needs and the safety of the public by committing minor to DJJ. There was no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: KING, J., MILLER, J.