From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re T.M.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 24, 2008
No. B198356 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2008)

Opinion


In re T.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.M., Defendant and Appellant. B198356 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division September 24, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ11546, S. Robert Ambrose, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Susan S. Kim, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MALLANO, P. J.

T.M. appeals from the order continuing wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) following findings that he committed four robberies and that one of the robberies was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The minor was committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) (formerly known as the California Youth Authority), for a maximum of six years. He contends that commitment to the DJJ constituted an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The minor had been a member of the Grape Street gang since he was 12 years old. On July 11, 2006, when the minor was 15, he and fellow Grape Street members approached two younger boys who were getting off the Blue Line train at the 103rd Street station in Los Angeles and demanded the boys’ bicycles. During the incident, in which the bicycles were forcibly taken, the minor hit each victim in the head. On July 21, the minor and some cohorts approached Jose Inglesias at the same station. The minor displayed a pistol and, with his cohorts, took Inglesias’s wallet and money. On July 28, the minor and some cohorts again approached Inglesias at the 103rd Street station. A gun was displayed, this time by one of the minor’s cohorts. Inglesias’s money was again taken. A surveillance video of the station showed that the minor made a Grape Street gang sign with his hands during one of the robberies.

At the conclusion of the adjudication hearing in mid-October, the minor’s counsel stated she understood that the probation department was recommending Youth Authority and that further investigation was needed to prepare for disposition. The disposition hearing was continued several times, ultimately to March 15, 2007.

The probation officer’s report before the court at the disposition hearing recounted, as part of the minor’s history of criminal conduct, the existence of a prior sustained petition for which suitable placement had been ordered and a later sustained petition for which camp community placement had been ordered. While under the supervision of the deputy probation officer who wrote the report, the minor had failed to report to the deputy and failed to enroll in a school program, but had continued to be involved with gang activities. The report further noted that the minor’s mother had died about four years earlier and the minor’s grandmother, with whom the minor was living, had suffered a series of strokes. It was recommended that the minor be committed to the Youth Authority.

The minor’s counsel filed a disposition memorandum in which she set forth the minor’s social history, including a diagnosis of attention deficit and hyperactivity and learning disorder, conduct disorder, adjustment disorder, and depression. The memorandum argued that the minor had the potential for rehabilitation in an appropriate psychiatric placement, but that he could not be rehabilitated in DJJ. At the disposition hearing, counsel argued in accordance with the position taken in her memorandum.

In ruling, the court stated it had read the memorandum and the various reports the minor’s counsel had provided. The court noted the minor’s prior history, both in committing offenses and his poor conduct at his other placements. It further commented that “[t]he activity that was taking place at the train station has to be frightening for the individuals that were involved. [¶] We’re not talking about one person robbing them, we’re talking about several individuals.” The court then concluded: “It finally comes in my mind to the point that the County is unable — probation is unable to bring the child around. I do not think lightly on these matters. . . . But I looked at this. I came to the conclusion, despite the best efforts of [the minor’s counsel], that [DJJ] is the appropriate remedy. [¶] The court is going to order the minor into [DJJ]. The court hereby declares the minor a ward, that the welfare of the minor [requires] custody be taken from the grandmother and that the mental and physical condition of the ward is such as to render it probable that the minor . . . will be benefitted by the reformatory, and rehabilitation and educational discipline and other treatment provided by the [DJJ].”

DISCUSSION

In both the juvenile court and on appeal, the minor has requested judicial notice of the consent decree in the Alameda County Superior Court case of Farrell v. Tilton (2004, No. RG 03079344) in which the DJJ agreed to undertake a remedial plan to improve its mental health operations and facilities. From this, the minor argues that as currently constituted the DJJ is unable to provide the mental health services that are required for rehabilitation, and therefore the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to DJJ. We disagree.

Although the Web site provided in the minor’s brief for a 2006 version of the DJJ plan does not appear to be operative, we have viewed the April 2008 DJJ “Quarterly Report for: Farrell vs. Tilton as Required by the Consent Decree” at [as of September 18, 2008].

“A juvenile court’s commitment order may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing the court abused its discretion. [Citation.] ‘“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.”’ [Citation.]” (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329–1330.) “A decision by the juvenile court to commit a minor to the CYA will not be deemed to constitute an abuse of discretion where the evidence ‘demonstrate[s] probable benefit to the minor from commitment to the CYA and that less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Pedro M. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 550, 555–556.) “In determining the judgment and order to be made in any case in which the minor is found to be a person described in Section 602, the court shall consider, in addition to other relevant and material evidence, (1) the age of the minor, (2) the circumstances and gravity of the offense committed by the minor, and (3) the minor’s previous delinquent history.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725.5.)

As recounted by the juvenile court, the circumstances and gravity of the minor’s current offenses and his previous delinquent history justify a DJJ commitment. On the other hand, there is no authority to support the minor’s assertion that the prospect of improvement in DJJ mental health operations and facilities at some point in the future can serve as a basis for concluding that the commitment order here lacks substantial evidence. Accordingly, the minor’s contention must be rejected.

DISPOSITION

The order under review is affirmed.

We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., WEISBERG, J.

Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

In re T.M.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 24, 2008
No. B198356 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2008)
Case details for

In re T.M.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.M., Defendant and Appellant.

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Sep 24, 2008

Citations

No. B198356 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2008)