Opinion
F085299
10-25-2023
In re A.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. A.G., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Dina Petrushenko, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County No. JJD072396. John P. Bianco, Judge.
Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Dina Petrushenko, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT [*]
Minor A.G. contends on appeal that the juvenile court's determination must be reversed because there is insufficient evidence to support the court's order committing minor to the Secured Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF). We affirm.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Minor's Prior Wardship Petitions and Probation Violations
July 19, 2019-Minor's First Juvenile Wardship Petition
On July 19, 2019, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging minor had committed vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1); possession of a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); count 2); participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a); count 3); and two misdemeanor counts of resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); counts 4 &5). It was further alleged as to counts 1 and 2 that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)).
All statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
On July 23, 2019, the juvenile court amended count 5 at the prosecution's request to allege minor resisted two different peace officers. Following the amendment, minor admitted count 5 and the remaining allegations were dismissed.
October 31, 2019-Minor's Second Juvenile Wardship Petition
On October 31, 2019, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a second juvenile wardship petition, pursuant to section 602, subdivision (a), alleging misdemeanor resisting, obstructing, and delaying a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 1); infraction possession of marijuana (Health &Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a); count 2); two counts of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); counts 3 &5); two counts of possession of a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); counts 4 &6); misdemeanor possession of burglary tools (Pen. Code, § 466; count 7); and misdemeanor giving false information to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a); count 8).
Minor admitted all the charges in the second petition. Minor's admission was contingent upon a determination of eligibility for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court granted minor DEJ.
February 28, 2020-Minor's Third Juvenile Wardship Petition
On February 28, 2020, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a third juvenile wardship petition, pursuant to section 602, subdivision (a), alleging minor committed two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; counts 1 &2) during which a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which caused great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (c), (e)(1)). It was further alleged as to counts 1 and 2 that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)).
Minor admitted one count of second degree robbery (count 2) and both the criminal street gang and firearm use enhancements from the third petition. The remaining charge was dismissed. A disposition hearing was scheduled for April 3, 2020.
April 1, 2020-Minor's Fourth Juvenile Wardship Petition
On April 1, 2020, before the previously scheduled disposition hearing, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a fourth juvenile wardship petition, pursuant to section 602, subdivision (a), alleging assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1).
On April 10, 2020, minor admitted the allegations of count 1. The juvenile court terminated minor's DEJ and ordered minor to Tulare County's one-year long "midterm program."
May 4, 2021-Minor's First Probation Violation
On May 4, 2021, a notice of a probation violation was filed against minor, pursuant to section 777, subdivision (a), alleging failure to abide by the rules of his electronic monitoring; failure to attend school or counseling regularly; failure to refrain from the use of illegal substances; and failure to abide by his curfew.
Minor admitted he violated probation. The juvenile court again ordered minor into Tulare County's midterm program for one year, for a second time.
January 3, 2022-Minor's Second Probation Violation
On January 3, 2022, a second notice of a probation violation was filed against minor, pursuant to section 277, subdivision (a), alleging failure to attend school regularly; failure to obey school rules and regulations; failure to not use, possess, or be under the influence of any controlled substance; failure to be at his place of residence between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; failure to not associate with known gang members; failure to not wear or display gang paraphernalia; and failure to abide by the terms of his aftercare program.
Minor admitted all the allegations. The juvenile court ordered minor to remain on electronic monitoring and to return to court for a disposition hearing. Minor failed to appear at the disposition hearing.
On September 25, 2022, minor was detained once again.
Minor's Current Offenses
September 26, 2022-Minor's Fifth Juvenile Wardship Petition
On September 26, 2022, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a fifth juvenile wardship petition, pursuant to section 602, subdivision (a) alleging carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a); count 1) and second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 2). It was further alleged as to counts 1 and 2 that minor personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)).
On September 27, 2022, minor admitted to carjacking (count 1) and the firearm enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). The remaining charge and allegation were dismissed.
On November 1, 2022, minor was committed to SYTF. The maximum period of imprisonment on all the sustained petitions was 47 years eight months, less 698 days credit for time served.
On November 15, 2022, minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Minor's First Juvenile Wardship Petition
Minor admitted the charges. Accordingly, the facts regarding the underlying offenses are taken from the Tulare County Probation Department's detention assessment and the probation officer's report.
On June 17, 2019, police officers found a stolen vehicle and were informed by a witness that five juveniles had exited the car before the officers' arrival. Officers searched the area and found the group nearby. The group, including minor, ran from the officers, but were eventually apprehended. The key to the stolen vehicle was found in the area where the group was running. The suspects, including minor, had "gang indicia" and were believed to be "Northern gang associated."
Minor's Second Juvenile Wardship Petition
Minor admitted the charges. Accordingly, the facts of the underlying offenses are taken from the probation officer's report.
On June 9, 2019, a police officer pulled over a vehicle that had been reported stolen. When the officers pulled the vehicle over, minor and two other suspects exited the vehicle and fled. Minor was apprehended, and officers found a bag with three and one-half grams of marijuana in his "front jean pocket."
On October 29, 2019, police officers found two vehicles reported stolen in an empty parking lot. Officers returned the vehicles to the owner, S.P., who noted minor paint and body damage.
The next day, a California Highway Patrol officer discovered another stolen vehicle parked on the side of the road. Officers surveilled the vehicle, and when it began to travel, officers stopped the vehicle. Minor was a passenger in the vehicle. Officers found a key ring in minor's possession holding several keys, including a key to one of S.P.'s stolen vehicles.
Minor's Third Juvenile Wardship Petition
Minor admitted the charges. Accordingly, the facts of the underlying offenses are taken from the probation officer's report.
On February 18, 2020, minor and another juvenile robbed a market. Both minor and the other juvenile brandished a semiautomatic firearm and demanded that the store clerk give them all the money in the store. Minor shoved the clerk and forced him to open the cash registers. Minor and the other juvenile took about $3,000 from the market, as well as some cigar boxes.
Minor's Fourth Juvenile Wardship Petition
The record on appeal does not contain the facts underlying this offense.
Minor was charged with committing an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) on August 28, 2019.
Minor's First Probation Violation
Minor admitted the probation violation. Accordingly, the underlying facts of the violation stem from the "CHRONO" filed by the probation department on May 4, 2021.
On September 3, 2020, minor was released to the aftercare program as part of his assigned midterm program. In February 2021, minor had missed several classes, had several missed assignments, and was "earning F's in all his classes." On April 1, 2021, minor failed to attend his review hearing.
In November 2020, minor did not charge his GPS for nine days. On April 28, 2021, minor's urine tested positive for cocaine and THC. Minor's mother also reported that minor had been refusing to attend school and counseling, and he had been leaving home without her permission. The probation officer also learned that minor had missed several classes and was "earning F's and D's in all his classes." On May 4, 2021, minor's mother reported minor had not been home since the day before, and she did not know where he was.
Minor's Second Probation Violation
Minor admitted that he violated probation and, accordingly, the underlying facts of the violation are taken from the "CHRONO" filed by the probation department on December 16, 2021.
On November 15, 2021, minor was suspended from school for "throwing gang-related signs" and yelling threats "to an opposing gang member." In December 2021, minor was suspended from school yet again for arriving at school under the influence of marijuana and "absconding when confronted."
On December 13, 2021, minor's mother reported that she had not seen minor in three days and he was not at school. As of December 16, 2021, minor had not been located, and he failed to comply with the terms and conditions of his aftercare program.
Minor's Fifth Juvenile Wardship Petition
Minor admitted the charges. Accordingly, the facts of the underlying offenses are taken from the probation officer's report.
On June 30, 2022, police officers responded to a carjacking. S.H. reported that she was sitting in her car when she heard tapping on her driver's side window. Minor and an accomplice were standing outside her car, both pointing handguns at her face. Minor ordered S.H. to roll down her window and exit the car. Minor and his accomplice then fled in S.H.'s car.
On July 1, 2022, officers spotted S.H.'s car in the driveway of a residence. Officer's surveilled the car and, once it began to travel, officers executed a traffic stop. During the traffic stop, minor exited the vehicle and fled on foot. S.H. identified minor from photo lineups as one of the carjackers.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's determination ordering minor to SYTF because less restrictive disposition alternatives were available. The People contend there is sufficient evidence to support the court's determination that SYTF was the least restrictive, suitable means of adjudicating minor.
We agree with the People.
A. Background
On November 1, 2022, a contested dispositional hearing was held after minor admitted to allegations contained in the fifth juvenile wardship petition filed against him.
Albert Ferreira, a supervising probation officer at the Tulare County Juvenile Detention Facility testified regarding the details of each of the four "in-custody programs" available at the juvenile detention facility: the short-term program, midterm program, long-term program, and SYTF, and the merits of both the long-term and SYTF programs. At the time he testified, he had worked as a probation officer in juvenile delinquency for approximately 22 years.
Ferreira testified that the long-term program was two years long and that it offered substance abuse and family counseling, parenting classes, aggression related therapy targeting anger management, a "behavior management program," and individual counseling sessions. He stated that the long-term program did not offer a gang intervention program, but that there were "consequences" for any "gang behavior." He explained that minors in the long-term program continue their education through the Tulare County court school and that, after the completion of the long-term program, there is an aftercare program administered by the minor's probation officer that includes GPS monitoring for the first 30 days of probation and further administration by the care program's provider. This and other services concerning the minor's transition back into the community after the long-term care program are decided upon by the multidiscipline team prior to release. He explained that the aftercare program typically runs for one year and that it is essentially an extension of the custodial program, with consequences if the minor fails to comply with all behavior directives.
Ferreira explained that the biggest difference between the long-term and SYTF programs was that SYTF has more programs available for participants and the programs are longer. He stated, "[There is] only so much you're going to get in a long-term ... compared to what [you are] going to get in a [SYTF]." He explained that, in addition to the program options also offered in the long-term program, SYTF offers some other programs relating to "more victim awareness" and "target[ing] psychological and emotional problems." He stated that some programs offered in both the long-term program and SYTF are offered in greater depth and for a longer duration during an SYTF commitment.
Ferreira stated that one factor when considering whether to commit a minor to SYTF rather than the long-term program is whether they had "gone through the other programs and they failed." He stated that it also matters whether the underlying charges are more serious, and particularly matters whether the minor has a history of escalating violence.
He stated that the incentives to succeed were the same throughout all the custodial programs. Defense counsel asked him, "If a minor had gone over two years without a new law violation, would that mitigate the need for a [SYTF]?" Ferreira answered, "It may. It would be hard for me to . . . say one way or another . . . I'm sure that's a factor we would take into consideration."
The juvenile court then asked Ferreira about minor's previous midterm commitments. Ferreira confirmed minor had completed the midterm program twice, which included behavioral programming, drug and alcohol counseling, and parenting classes, but that he had subsequently reoffended. Ferreira also stated that minor had gang related tattoos, but that he did not know whether minor had ever been challenged on this basis by anyone in the juvenile hall.
Minor then addressed the juvenile court, asking for the long-term program. He stated that "over the past few months" he realized that "this isn't how I want to live my life," and that he would like to get a job to provide for his son, his parents and himself, and that he wanted to be someone his son could always count on to be there. He stated that during his incarceration he had perfect behavior in the unit and school and set personal goals for himself, and that he just "need[ed] this last chance to prove [he] can do good and [he] can succeed in [his] program and complete probation."
Defense counsel asked Ferreira which programs were offered in both the long-term program and SYTF. He answered, "[T]hey're both receiving 'thinking for a change,' ... 'stages of change,' ... an anger management component ... I know with .. [SYTF] there's an anger management program that goes a little bit further than what they get in the long-term. They are also getting the family counseling, the individual counseling. They're getting a parenting class...."
The prosecution argued in favor of SYTF commitment, stating that minor had failed the midterm program twice already and needed "everything in the kitchen sink thrown at him for rehabilitation," considering the violent nature of his current offense.
Defense counsel then argued in favor of the long-term program, stating it was the least restrictive means for minor to achieve rehabilitation since he had only done the midterm program previously. She argued that minor's last offense prior to the current offense was two and one-half years prior, and that his second midterm commitment was only for a probation violation with no new law violations alleged. She further argued that the long-term program would be able to adequately address minor's needs because he would receive several forms of counseling, although it did not include a specific gang intervention counseling and "[t]hough not every service is available through the long-term as is through the [SYTF]." She argued that the lessons in the long-term program, provided by the same agency that provides the SYTF programs, would "allow [minor] to exit the long-term program and the aftercare program to be a law abiding member of society," and that the aftercare for the long-term program would give him a chance to apply those lessons to the real world while still protecting the community because he could be redetained if he did not comply with the aftercare rules.
The juvenile court ordered minor to SYTF and determined there was not a "[less] restrictive disposition alternative." The court stated minor had received the behavioral programming and alcohol and drug programming in the midterm program twice but still reoffended. It explained in a detailed statement, "Court has considered the probation report. The [c]ourt also has considered the juvenile's file. Court has considered the testimony provided and the statements by the minor. The [c]ourt has to weigh factors under [section] 875 in determining whether or not placement at the [SYTF] is the appropriate disposition and that there is not a less restrictive alternative disposition.
"In this case, the [c]ourt has to consider the Juvenile Detention Facility programs that are available. Previously, the detention facility had basically two programming options, they had the behavioral programming and then the alcohol and drug counseling. Minor's received that programming in the midterm program. The long-term program allow[s] for the minor to receive some vocational training and additional time to absorb the behavioral training.
"In looking at [minor]'s prior record and prior dispositions, the [c]ourt notes that the minor first appeared before the [c]ourt when he was 14 [years old] for a series of offenses. He was placed in the midterm program. He was pending a petition when he picked up a second degree robbery with gang enhancements and use of a firearm. He was placed in the midterm program. He then picked up a violation of probation and he was replaced in the program.
"Court reviewed the minor's performance after he was released from the program in his aftercare. The [c]ourt notes that after his initial stay in the midterm program he was released in the aftercare program in April of 2021, when he failed to comply with the terms of the program. He continued to use controlled substances, he continued to fail to attend school, he continued to fail to abide by the GPS system, he failed to not refrain from use of controlled substances, he failed to abide by his curfew. All told, he basically didn't comply with any of the terms of his aftercare program. A violation of probation was filed in which the minor was again put into the midterm program. He spent in both those cases approximately six months in the program. After his second stint in the midterm program, he was-he failed again at attend school; he failed to refrain from the use of marijuana and other controlled substances, including cocaine; he failed to abide by curfew; he failed to comply with the after program. He was then picked up again. He did at least one aftercare hold. He was pending a violation of probation and he failed to appear in court and a bench warrant was issued.
"Now, you may say that he was law abiding during the period of time he was out of custody, but the [c]ourt finds that's not the case. In fact, he was avoiding a bench warrant from February until September when he was picked up, not only on the violation of probation but this new [section] 211. So the [c]ourt finds that the minor-as to the severity of the offense, this is a serious offense. Not only is this a [section] 707 [subdivision] (b) offense, car jacking and robbery, but it is one which a gun was used, which makes it more serious than a general [section] 707 [subdivision] (b) offense. So the [c]ourt finds under [section] 875.3 [subdivision] (a) that the severity of the offense is substantial.
"As to the minor's previous delinquent history under [section] 875.3 [subdivision] (b), the [c]ourt finds that the minor first was before this [c]ourt when he was 14 [years old] on a [section] 245 with gang enhancements. He has continued to live that gang lifestyle for the last three years. He has not-anything he received in custody at the midterm program and his aftercare has made no impact on him. He continues to involve himself in the gang lifestyle. And quite frankly, he may indicate that he's seen some changing of ways in the last month or two, but the [c]ourt believes that is in part due to his current detention, and I don't believe that he has any intention of walking away from the gang lifestyle.
"[A]s I indicated, programming was limited to cognitive behavioral programming and alcohol and drug counseling that was carried on in the aftercare through counseling. He did not avail himself of any of that counseling. In fact, one of the reasons he was in violation of the terms of his probation is once he's released, he doesn't follow up with the counseling, so he doesn't get the benefit of that aftercare program, nor does he continue in his rehabilitation when he's released from custody. We are now with [a new provider], which is providing additional programming services. However, as Officer Ferreira indicated, the services provided in the [SYTF] are not only more but also longer in duration to assist the minor in fully rehabilitating.
"[T]he [c]ourt does not believe that the long-term program can serve the minor in the necessary rehabilitative needs so that the minor can be safely released to the community. I've considered under [section] 875.3 subdivision (E) the minor's age, developmental maturity, mental and emotional health, and those other factors in determining that the [SYTF] is the most appropriate and least restrictive disposition alternative.
"The minor has, as indicated, first appeared before this [c]ourt when he was 14 [years old]. He's done two programs at the detention facility. And while he completed those programs at the detention facility, his behavior was not changed and he continued to engage in the same activities once he was released into aftercare. He has never successfully completed a term of probation since he was 14 years old. And so at this point, the [c]ourt believes that the [SYTF], with the additional programming that is available only in the [SYTF], is the least restrictive alternative for a disposition.
"Court has read and considered the probation report. Minor has been detained and is at risk of entering into foster care."
B. Law
In recent years, the Legislature has overhauled juvenile wardship law by closing the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and transferring jurisdiction over youthful offenders to counties, with the stated purpose of ensuring minors are closer to their families and communities and receive age-appropriate treatment. (In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 907; In re T.O. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 252, 262-263; § 736.5; Sen. Bill No. 823 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.); Stats. 2020, ch. 337, §1.)
A further change to the juvenile law, effective May 14, 2021, established requirements for counties' secure youth treatment facilities. (§ 875, added by Stats. 2021 ch. 18, § 12 &amended by Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 41.) Among them, such a facility must "provide appropriate programming, treatment, and education" for wards; it may be either a stand-alone facility or a unit or portion of an existing county juvenile facility "that is configured and programmed to serve" the youth committed to it; and it must comply with applicable regulatory standards. (§ 875, subd. (g)(1), (2).) Each youth must have the opportunity for at least one hour of daily programming, including "trauma focused, cognitive, evidence-based, best practice interventions that are culturally relevant and linguistically appropriate, or pro-social interventions and activities designed to reduce recidivism," based on the youth's individual needs. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 1371, subd. (a).) The programs may include, among other things: cognitive behavior inventions; management of stress and trauma; anger management; conflict resolution; trauma-related interventions; victim awareness; self-improvement; art, creative writing, or self-expression; restorative justice or civil engagement; and career and leadership opportunities. (Ibid.)
Section 875 also sets criteria that must be satisfied before a ward is committed to SYTF. Before committing a youth to a secure facility, the juvenile court must make a finding that no less restrictive alternative disposition is suitable. (§ 875, subd. (a)(3).) In making this determination, the court must consider all relevant and material evidence, including the recommendations of counsel, the probation department, and anyone else designated to advise on the appropriate disposition, and it must base its determination on several additional criteria: the severity of the most recent offense or offenses; the ward's previous delinquent history; "[w]hether the programming, treatment, and education offered and provided in a [SYTF] is appropriate to meet the treatment and security needs of the ward"; whether a less restrictive disposition would meet the goals of rehabilitation and public safety; and the ward's age, maturity, mental and emotional health, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and disabilities or special needs. (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(C).)
A decision to commit a minor must be supported by evidence of probable benefit to the minor, as well as evidence that less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate. (See In re Miguel C., supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 906 [D]J commitment]; In re Teofilio A. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 571, 576.) This review "is particularly fact intensive and requires a fully informed analysis by the juvenile court of the minor's needs and the programs' services." (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1291.)
We review a juvenile court's placement decision for abuse of discretion. (In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154.) A court abuses its discretion if its factual findings find no support in the evidence. (Ibid.) In our review, we examine the record in light of the purposes of the court law. (Ibid.)
C. Analysis
Minor contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to SYTF because the evidence shows the less restrictive long-term program would meet minor's needs. Minor argues he should be afforded the opportunity to be committed to the long-term program because his "choices appeared to have improved" after both of his midterm programs.
However, on this record, we conclude the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion. Ample evidence supports the court's findings, including Ferreira's testimony, as well as minor's previous criminal history. The court considered the probation report, probation officer's testimony, minor's statement and counsel's recommendations. Further, when ordering minor to SYTF, the court specifically discussed minor's specific needs, whether alternative placement options were available or reasonable, the specific services available at SYTF compared to the long-term program, whether those services would be of probable benefit to minor, the severity of minor's current offense, minor's previous delinquent history, age, maturity, and mental and emotional health, as required by section 875. (Supp. RT 32-35; § 875.)
First, the juvenile court found based on the record that minor's most recent offense, a carjacking during the commission of which he personally used a firearm, satisfied section 875, subdivision (a)'s requirement that the basis for SYTF eligibility was minor's most recent offense and was a section 707, subdivision (b) offense committed while minor was 14 years or older.
Next, as required by section 875, the juvenile court considered the relevant evidence and went through each of the required criteria in determining a less restrictive, alternative disposition for minor was unsuitable. The court first explained that minor's most recent offense of carjacking while pointing a gun at a woman's face was a "serious offense" of "substantial" severity because minor used a firearm, and that he was also "avoiding a bench warrant from February to September," before his most recent detention. (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(A).) The court then stated that minor's previous delinquent history was extensive and continuous, with five sustained juvenile wardship petitions of increasing violence over the course of three years, despite being committed to the midterm program twice, noting he "lived that gang lifestyle" for three years and had not demonstrated an "intention of walking away from the gang lifestyle." (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(B).) The court found it was "not the case" that minor was "law abiding during the ... time he was out of custody," as defense counsel asserted. The court noted that minor was pending a violation of probation, failed to appear in court and was avoiding a bench warrant when he was apprehended for the current offense.
The juvenile court also discussed minor's prior performance after the midterm commitments, noting minor failed the midterm program twice, "basically [not] comply[ing] with any of the terms of his aftercare program." The court noted that both times in aftercare, minor failed to continue counseling and was not law-abiding once out of custody, continued to abuse substances including marijuana and cocaine, failed to abide by the curfew, failed to abide by the GPS system and failed to attend school.
The juvenile court then stated that in light of minor's history, current offense, and age, developmental maturity, and mental and emotional health, SYTF would have more probable benefit to minor than the long-term program because SYTF offers more program options, the duration of the programs offered in SYTF are longer and minor's continued rehabilitation in SYTF would not be contingent upon his compliance with an aftercare program, as had been in the midterm program and would again be in a long-term program. The court noted that while the long-term program would be longer than the midterm programs minor was previously committed to, the long-term programs were structured similarly to the midterm program with counseling continuing in aftercare, which minor previously twice failed. Further, it noted that minor's continued "allegiance" to a gang indicates the long-term program would be insufficient to meet his needs, as it does not have gang counseling like SYTF. Accordingly, the court stated that it found the long-term program would be ineffective and not meet the needs of minor.
The juvenile court's determination is supported by ample evidence on the record, including Ferreira's extensive testimony on the different programming available in both the long-term program and SYTF, minor's criminal history, and his past performance in the two midterm programs to which he had previously been committed. The court was entitled to consider probation's recommendation that SYTF would address minor's need for "a more substantial period of time in custody with more intensive services."
Here, because the record contains ample evidence of minor's specific needs and the programs and services at SYTF that might benefit him and serve those needs, as well as ample evidence of why the long-term program would be ineffective and unsuitable for minor's specific needs, we conclude the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in finding that SYTF commitment would be of probable benefit to the minor and there is no less restrictive, suitable disposition alternative.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the disposition order.
[*] Before Franson, Acting P. J., Pena, J. and Snauffer, J.