Opinion
F042379.
10-15-2003
In re RAMON R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMON R., Defendant and Appellant.
Michele A. Douglass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Kathleen A. McKenna, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Ramon R. appeals from a juvenile court disposition placing him in the California Youth Authority (CYA) for a maximum confinement period of five years. Finding no abuse of the juvenile courts discretion, we will affirm.
BACKGROUND
The facts surrounding Ramons disposition are taken from Modesto police reports as summarized by county probation.
In the evening of May 9, 2002, Vicki Perkins noticed her car tire had been slashed and saw 16-year-old Ramon riding away on his bicycle with a hunting knife in hand. Perkins also saw Ramon and several other males drive back and forth in front of her residence during the next few hours. At one point, Ramon exchanged angry words with Perkinss sons, Brian and Robert.
Later that night, Perkins heard two gunshots. According to Brian and Robert, Ramon fired the shots at them from a small chrome handgun. Another witness observed Ramon exit his car, walk towards the Perkinss residence, stop, turn, and fire two shots down the street towards the Perkins brothers. Although no one was injured, one bullet struck the Perkinss car.
The Stanislaus District Attorney filed a juvenile court petition alleging Ramon committed two counts of felony assault with a firearm. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2).) Ramon initially denied the charges, but later pled no contest to two counts of non-serious/violent felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) In December 2002, the juvenile court committed Ramon to CYA for a maximum term of confinement of 60 months.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
DISCUSSION
A juvenile courts commitment decision may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion. (In re Todd W. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 408, 416.) "`We must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings when there is substantial evidence to support them." (In re Lorenza M. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 49, 53.) The juvenile court may consider numerous factors in imposing disposition, including the minors current offense, history of delinquency, risk to the community, mental sophistication, need for a controlled environment, and compliance with prior court orders. (In re Mikeal D. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 710, 718-720; In re Anthony M. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 491, 503-505; In re Jesse McM. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 187, 191-193.)
In determining whether the juvenile court abused its discretion, a commitment must conform to the general purpose of the juvenile court law. (§ 202; In re Todd W., supra, 96 Cal.App.3d at p. 417.) The juvenile court may impose punishment, but the disposition must evidence probable benefit to the minor and that less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate. (§ 202, subd. (e); In re Teofilio A. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 571, 576.) While the juvenile court law contemplates a progressively restrictive and punitive series of dispositions, there is no absolute rule that the court may not impose a particular commitment until less restrictive placements have actually been attempted. (Id. at p. 577.)
Applying these principles, we find the juvenile court acted within its discretion by placing Ramon at CYA. Before imposing disposition, the juvenile court specifically reviewed Ramons probation and psychological reports, various reference letters, special education report, and testimony presented at the contested dispositional hearing.
Ramon emphasizes the evidence offered by his evaluating psychologist, Dr. Roger Katz, who felt Ramon was not at high risk of re-offending or likely to commit further acts of violence. Dr. Katz recommended placing Ramon at a "step below" CYA, such as a juvenile camp program, noting a possible detriment to associating with more sophisticated delinquents at CYA. Further, Ramon did not have a prior juvenile record and had never been in custody or received the benefit of less restrictive dispositions.
Notwithstanding Dr. Katzs recommendation, the juvenile court found Ramons conduct "very, very serious," especially in light of his history of prior altercations. As the probation report summarized:
"Neighbors have reported the minor and his friends have been terrorizing innocent people in the neighborhood. They have seen these incidents slowly rise from dirty looks and nasty comments to violent acts. The minor could have caused serious harm or death to either the Perkinss [sic] brothers, or any other innocent person walking the street that night. In speaking to the minor, he does not appear to understand the seriousness of these offenses nor does not appear to be remorseful in any way. Further, in reviewing this case, it appears the minor has not attended school for any significant period of time since last year. He is not employed, and appears to be satisfied with "hanging out," harassing neighbors and causing trouble. Although he denies being a member of a gang, school officials report the minor was suspended from school for wearing too many items of red clothing.
"Although this is the minors first appearance before the Juvenile Court, his actions in this case are of serious concern. He and his friends continued to harass the Perkinss [sic] family for several hours the night of these offenses. He chose to pull out a handgun and fire two rounds at two people he perceived to have wronged him. His actions were callous and could have had a devastating outcome. The undersigned believes the minor is a serious threat to the community in which he resides. A commitment to the California Youth Authority is necessary to ensure protection of the community. The California Youth Authority will provide the minor a structured environment that includes an educational program and vocational training. It is hoped the minor will benefit from these services and emerge as a responsible, non-threatening member of the community."
Even though this was Ramons first charged offense, the probation report described his pattern of prior delinquency, including slashing tires, numerous altercations with the Perkins and other neighbors, marijuana and alcohol use, and poor school attendance. Agreeing with the probation report, the juvenile court also found Ramons continued custody at home unacceptable as evidenced by his recent actions that brought him to court.
The record demonstrates the juvenile court considered dispositions less restrictive than CYA, including probation, a placement program, and a suspended CYA commitment, but ultimately found the options inappropriate after taking into account Ramons particular circumstances and the safety of the public. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.