Opinion
D058814
10-06-2011
In re ANDRE M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE M., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. JJL24325)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Juan Ulloa, Judge. Affirmed.
On February 20, 2007, minor Andre M. pleaded no contest to second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460(b)). At the disposition hearing the court declared Andre a ward of the court, with no termination date (Welf. & Inst. Code,§ 602). Andre's probation required him to attend all regular school sessions. On November 16, 2010, Andre admitted to violating probation by having 13 days of unexcused absences from school and nine tardies. The court ordered Andre to be returned to the custody of his parents and continued Andre's formal probation until his 21st birthday, or earlier, as determined by the court. Andre did not object to the court continuing the probation to age 21.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
Andre appeals, contending the court abused its discretion by modifying his probation to end at age 21. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
In January 2007, 12-year-old Andre lived in Pittsburg, California. On January 29, 2007, Walnut Creek police found Andre at the Buena Vista Elementary School, with a stun gun in his hand. Police questioned Andre about a residential burglary that occurred two days earlier. Andre told police that he, his nine-year-old sister, and his 12-year-old friend, Junior, had taken public transit to Walnut Creek. Junior climbed through the window of an empty home and let Andre inside. Junior took a video game, laptop computer, Play Station portable game, and an iPod from the home. The three juveniles took the public transit to San Francisco and sold the goods for $800. Junior and Andre split the money. Andre was placed on formal probation in Contra Costa County. On January 20, 2009, Contra Costa County transferred Andre's wardship to Imperial County because his family moved to Salton Sea.
Andre's mental problems began at age eight when he had a psychotic episode and was hospitalized. Andre has been placed in two group homes since 2006, and he ran away from both. Andre's record is replete with evidence of psychological problems, anger issues, defiance, physical violence directed towards himself and others, parental neglect and obstruction, and disregard for court orders. Andre has committed burglary, he is violent towards his family, and towards animals, and has a history of setting his parents' house on fire. He has refused to take prescribed psychotherapeutic medication, and has been hospitalized for suicidal behavior. In nearly four years of formal probation, Andre has shown little progress. His probation officer stated, "it is apparent the minor is in dire need of constant supervision, monitoring, special education assistance and accountability for his delinquent behavior."
DISCUSSION
Andre contends the court erred in extending his probation to the age of 21 because the extension is broader than necessary to achieve the desired result. He argues the extension is not narrowly tailored, and it is overly broad because the purpose was to address his absences from school and yet the extension furthered no educational goal.
The People contend Andre waived the issue because he did not timely object to the extension of jurisdiction. The record reflects Andre did not object, however the issue of unconstitutional vagueness of probation conditions is not waived on appeal. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888.)
--------
"We review a commitment decision only for abuse of discretion, and indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court." (In re Asean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 473.)
Section 607, subdivision (a), provides:
"The court may retain jurisdiction over any person who is found to be a ward . . . until the ward . . . attains the age of 21 years . . . ."
Further, section 730, subdivision (b) provides:
"When a ward . . . is placed under the supervision of the probation officer . . . the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the conduct of such ward . . . . The court may impose and require any and all reasonable conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced."
The court has broad discretion to impose conditions of probation to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120.) Andre is incorrect that the probation extension was limited to addressing the court's wish for Andre to gain an education. Attending school was merely one requirement of Andre's probation. The trial court did not change the already imposed conditions of probation. Rather, the court extended the probation term because Andre still posed a serious threat to himself and the public. Andre's need for continued supervision is evidenced by his disregard for the court's orders, continued defiance, and acts of violence. The court extended its jurisdiction in an effort to avoid Andre's re-offending and subsequently being in the adult criminal justice system. The continuation of Andre's probation reasonably relates to past crimes and is directly related to deterring his future criminality, and is neither vague or overbroad. On November 30, 2010 the court noted "in the last year we really haven't made much progress . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] I don't see any other choice for any hope of success . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] [T]he order of the Court is that the minor be continued as a ward of the Court, continued on formal probation until his 21st birthday."
Andre was put on probation four years ago. Since that time he has continually shown disregard for the court's orders, committed numerous acts of violence towards himself and others, and violated court ordered probation. Andre has shown minimal to no improvement during his formal probation. The court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the extension was in the best interest of Andre, and society.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.