Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1000990.
Siggins, J.
I.E., a minor, appeals from a dispositional order of the juvenile court. His counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. There are none, and we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The facts are taken from the probation reports. In May 2010 I.E. was charged in Alameda County with stealing merchandise (candy, soda, chips, etc.) from a gas station. He admitted one count of misdemeanor petty theft and the matter was transferred to Contra Costa County Juvenile Court for disposition.
On August 3, 2010, in San Francisco, I.E. grabbed Teresa S. from behind, pulled her purse off her shoulder, and knocked her to the ground. The court sustained allegations of felony grand theft and misdemeanor false imprisonment. This case, too, was transferred to Contra Costa County for disposition.
Less than two weeks later I.E. left a restaurant without paying for his meal and was charged in Contra Costa County with defrauding an innkeeper.
The dispositional hearing was held on September 3 and 17, 2010. The court dismissed the petition stemming from the restaurant incident on the condition that I.E. pay $11.38 in restitution. I.E. was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court on the remaining charges and ordered to serve a 270 day program at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (Orin Allen).
Four days after I.E. arrived at Orin Allen he was discharged to juvenile hall for making disrespectful and inappropriate sexual comments to a female staff member. According to the probation report, I.E. told a probation counselor: “Man, shut the hell up, nobody is listening to you”; “Don’t make me put you on blast”; and “Man shut the fuck up, I don’t like you and I’m not going to listen to anything you have to say.” I.E. also made explicit, insulting sexual comments about the counselor and called her a “bop.” As a result of this conduct, he received a notice of probation violation. I.E. admitted the probation violation and the court sustained the allegation.
The probation officer’s report for the subsequent disposition hearing described I.E.’s long history of behavioral and cognitive problems dating back to kindergarten. In middle school I.E. “often posed behavioral problems in the classroom. [I.E.] was often off-task, disruptive, and would leave the classroom without permission. [I.E.] also received referrals for possession of drugs, sexual harassment, theft and fighting. As a result of his poor adjustment and updated IEP, he was transferred to the Transition Learning Center (TLC) in Pinole. At TLC, [I.E.] had attendance issues and continued to have behavioral issues. On April 28, 2009, [I.E.] was suspended for five days after he assaulted a staff member. Consequently, he was placed on the independent study program; however, he continued to have attendance issues.”
Also in 2009, I.E. choked an 11-year-old girl while his 14-year-old uncle took property from her pockets. The juvenile court sustained a misdemeanor battery allegation. I.E. was released on electronic monitoring pending disposition, but he was rearrested after he removed his ankle monitor and disappeared from his home. When he was returned home after his dispositional hearing he violated probation by leaving without permission. He was then placed at Wilderness Recovery Center, but was discharged within weeks due to daily episodes of profound and uncontrollable rage and other serious misbehavior. I.E. was then placed at DN Associates, but was discharged 11 days later for noncompliant and combative behavior. The wardship was vacated and the petition dismissed after I.E. exhausted all custody time in April 2010. He then embarked on the series of offenses that led to his current commitment.
In addition to this behavioral history, the juvenile court considered mental health and neurological assessments, as well as the probation department’s assessment of placement options, including the Youth Offenders Treatment Program (YOTP). The department recommended placement in an alternative home or institution because of his age and lack of maturity even though I.E. was eligible for YOTP. At that time I.E. was in a maximum security program at juvenile hall because he made death threats and physical threats to staff and threw an object at a teacher.
The juvenile court rejected the probation department’s recommendation. It explained that the public safety concern posed by I.E.’s escalating record of violence and delinquent behavior required that he be placed in a secure locked facility, and that none of the alternatives to YOTP was sufficiently secure to protect the public. “So the problem is that as we proceed down the road of [I.E.]s] conduct, the more violent, aggressive and out of control it is, the more public safety factor predominates in the calculation, even though I am required and would always do my best to find a disposition that’s the most consistent with [I.E.’s] rehabilitation and the least restrictive possible.” The court committed I.E. to YOTP for a maximum period of three years and 20 days. I.E. filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defense counsel represents that he advised his client of his right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. This court has reviewed the entire record on appeal. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P.J., Pollak, J.