Opinion
B161564.
7-21-2003
In re JORGE P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JORGE P., Defendant and Appellant.
California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Gary A. Lieberman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jorge P. (Jorge) appeals the order committing him to the California Youth Authority (CYA) following his admission that he willfully failed to return to custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 871, subd. (c).) We affirm.
FACTS
In September of 2001 Jorge, age 16, admitted the allegations of his first section 602 petition that he gave false information to the police. (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a).) The court declared him a ward, placed him on probation, and released him to his mother.
In February 2002 Jorge admitted committing vandalism by smashing a car window with a baseball bat in a gang-related incident. The court released him on "home supervision" with an electronic monitoring device and warned him not to associate with gang members.
A month later, Jorge removed the monitoring device and left home without permission. The police found him in the company of gang members. He admitted committing the offense of escape. The court committed him for placement at the Tri-Counties Boot Camp.
At boot camp, Jorge struck another minor in the back of the head, two or three times, without any provocation. He admitted committing battery and the court placed him at the Colston Youth Center (CYC).
At CYC, Jorge refused to participate in required activities. He admitted the allegations of a section 602 petition that he threatened a correctional officer to prevent him from performing his duties. (Pen. Code, § 69.) The court committed him to the Work Education Restitution and Competency Program (WERC).
At WERC, Jorge received a two-hour furlough to look for employment, but he did not return. He admitted the allegations of a petition that he willfully failed to return to custody ( § 871, subd. (c)) and that he violated probation by using cocaine. The court recommitted him to the WERC program.
In August 2002 the court sustained the seventh section 602 petition after Jorge did not return to WERC after obtaining another furlough.
The probation report recommended a CYA commitment. The court found that Jorge "will be benefited by the reformatory, educational discipline, and other treatment provided by the [CYA]."
DISCUSSION
Jorge contends the court erred by committing him to CYA. "We review a commitment decision only for abuse of discretion, and indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court. [Citations.]" (In re Asean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 473.) The court may consider several factors in making a CYA commitment. These include the best interests of the ward, community safety, prior rehabilitation efforts, the wards offenses and history of delinquency. (Ibid. ;In re Anthony M. (1981) 116 Cal. App. 3d 491, 504-505, 172 Cal. Rptr. 153.)
Jorge contends the court erred because a CYA commitment is a last resort. He argues the court was impatient and there were less restrictive alternatives. But "a commitment to the Youth Authority may be made in the first instance, without previous resort to less restrictive placements. [Citation.]" (In re Asean D. ,supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 473.) Here the court did not make the CYA commitment until after it had sustained seven petitions. Before that, the court provided Jorge with alternatives including probation, home supervision, electronic monitoring, boot camp, CYC, and two WERC program commitments. He committed offenses at each of the rehabilitation programs, and when given furloughs, failed to return.
Jorge contends the court committed him to CYA without considering his need for treatment and rehabilitation. But the court found Jorge would benefit from the discipline and services available there. The probation report said he could continue his education at CYA and receive "long-term treatment."
Jorge contends there was no evidence that he was "a real threat to public safety." But his battery offense at boot camp was violent and unprovoked. He threatened a correctional officer. At least one of his offenses was gang related and he repeatedly ignored the courts warning about not associating with gang members. Jorge has not shown an abuse of discretion.
The order is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, J. PERREN, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.