Opinion
F076309
05-23-2018
In re C.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.W., Defendant and Appellant.
Charles M. Bonneau III, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. 12CEJ600905-3, 12CEJ600905-3A)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Denise Lee Whitehead, Judge. Charles M. Bonneau III, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Peña, J.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for minor C.W. asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to minor, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Minor did not respond. We affirm.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On March 25, 2016, minor entered someone else's home through the kitchen window with the intent to steal. Minor ransacked the house and took valuable items and important documents. He left the front door unlocked. Fingerprints at the scene matched minor's fingerprints.
On August 2, 2016, minor demanded money from a victim in a Walmart parking lot. When the victim, who was setting up his portable camper for the night, told minor he had no money, minor threw a hard object at his face, knocking him to the ground. The victim started screaming for help. A witness observed the victim running from minor and another male. The victim fell to the ground and minor and his cohort started kicking him. Minor rummaged through the victim's vehicle, attempting to take the victim's property (the victim later reported he had nothing of value). The witness yelled at minor and his cohort. The witness tried to get his cell phone to record the incident, but minor and his cohort ran away, leaving with nothing. The victim was left with visible injuries.
On June 30, 2016, a juvenile wardship petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging minor had committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). A second petition was filed on August 3, 2016, alleging minor had committed attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211).
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
On August 17, 2016, the juvenile court granted the prosecution's motion to consolidate the petitions.
On August 31, 2016, the juvenile court informed minor his maximum term of confinement was six years eight months. Minor admitted both allegations. The court determined minor was a child described by section 602
On September 23, 2016, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court reiterated minor's maximum term of confinement of six years eight months. The court placed minor, who had just turned 18 years old, on probation and committed him to the Juvenile Justice Campus (JJC) for 310 days, with his probation to continue for about two months following his release. One term of his probation was that he "obey all rules and staff of [JJC]."
Although minor had turned 18 years old, for convenience, we continue referring to him as "minor."
The juvenile court recognized that minor had a long history of involvement with the juvenile court and of probation violations. The court also recognized it could still send him to JJC, despite his being 18 years old. The court clearly attempted to give him one last chance under the juvenile court system, telling him: "I think probably the natural inclination would be to follow the recommendation, send you to the jail with people who are 18 and above, with the thought that, you know, that's where you're going to end up eventually if you keep this up, as well as prison, so you might as well get acclimated to the new people in your life. However, I don't think that the jail is appropriate for you, I think you've been doing well here [at JJC] and people speak highly of you—at least they've seen some improvement in you here so I think you can benefit still from our services. [¶] ... [¶] Okay. I think you've had some hard knocks in your life which have made it difficult for you to succeed, but you're 18 now, and if you participate in crimes where people are hurt, people aren't going to be talking about your background and hard knocks, they're going to be talking about locking you up. So take advantage of some of the services offered here and the environment here, and hopefully you'll learn from this and go on."
On November 3, 2016, the probation officer filed a petition to modify minor's probation because he had "shown no amenability to juvenile services." Minor had been disruptive in his pod at JJC and was inciting gang tension. He was creating security issues by forcefully bumping into metal detectors in the presence of all the minors being escorted to school and by threatening staff. His conduct and performance indicated he was not taking his education seriously. He had been offered a variety of rehabilitation services but had not taken advantage of them. Moreover, he had a history of seven probation violations.
On November 8, 2016, the probation officer further informed the court that minor's behavior at JJC had been very poor. He was not following the rules, he was being disrespectful to the staff, and he was not attending school. He had created security issues, as explained in the petition. The juvenile court told minor: "[This court] leaned over backwards last time to leave you here [at JJC] and you rewarded us by acting out and not taking advantage of these opportunities. As a result, I am going to modify your sentence." The court granted the petition and modified minor's probation, ordering him transferred to county jail to complete his term, with his probation to terminate on July 29, 2017, the tentative date of his release.
On July 29, 2017, minor completed his 310-day term and his probation was terminated.
On September 14, 2017, the probation officer prepared a report recommending that the juvenile court seal minor's records pursuant to section 786 because the probation officer believed minor had satisfactorily completed the terms and conditions of his probation in that he did not receive a violation of probation while in custody.
On September 15, 2017, the juvenile court denied section 786 relief, finding minor had failed to comply with the reasonable terms of his probation that he had the ability to comply with. He failed to obey rules and staff at JJC and thus needed to be moved to the county jail. The court explained:
"The fact that he served some time in jail and didn't get violated does not demonstrate that he successfully completed his probation. His probation was modified because he could no longer be safely housed with other juveniles because of his own disruptive behavior. [¶] So to say, simply because he served the time at Fresno County Jail and then his probation terminated means that it was a successful completion of probation is—it's not reasonable. [¶] So I'm going to find that he did not successfully complete his probation .... [¶] ... [¶] The circumstances of this case do not reflect that this minor successfully completed juvenile probation on these petitions. Rather, it reflects that the determination was made that he was no longer amenable to juvenile court services; therefore, housed at the Fresno County Jail, with his probation to terminate on his completion of his term. [¶] That does not constitute a successful completion of probation such that he should be granted relief under 786. And 786 relief is denied. [¶] ... [¶] [M]y conclusion is he failed to comply with the reasonable terms of probation that he had the ability to comply with when his behavior at the [JJC] was such that probation moved—based on his inappropriate behavior and lack of amenability to juvenile court services and lack of suitability for the [JJC], that he was then moved to the Fresno County Jail demonstrates that he did not successfully complete his probation."
On September 18, 2017, minor filed a notice of appeal of the juvenile court's denial of section 786 relief.
DISCUSSION
Section 786 provides that if a ward of the juvenile court "satisfactorily completes" probation, "the court shall order the petition dismissed" and "shall order sealed all records pertaining to the dismissed petition in the custody of the juvenile court, and in the custody of law enforcement agencies, the probation department, or the Department of Justice." (§ 786, subd. (a).) Satisfactory completion of probation "shall be deemed to have occurred if the person has no new findings of wardship or conviction for a felony offense or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude during the period of ... probation and if he or she has not failed to substantially comply with the reasonable orders of supervision or probation that are within his or her capacity to perform." (Id., subd. (c)(1), italics added.)
"Substantial compliance is not perfect compliance. Substantial compliance is commonly understood to mean 'compliance with the substantial or essential requirements of something (as a statute or contract) that satisfies its purpose or objective even though its formal requirements are not complied with.' " (In re A.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 697, 709.)
A decision to grant or deny section 786 relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re A.V., supra, 11 Cal. App.5th at p. 701 ["court has the discretion under section 786 to find the ward has or has not substantially complied with ... probation so as to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed it"].) Under this standard, " 'a trial court's ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the judgment [or order] is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.' " (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1004; see People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 371 ["[a] court abuses its discretion when its ruling 'falls outside the bounds of reason' "].)
Here, the juvenile court expressly found that minor had not complied with his probation requirements. Substantial evidence supports that finding: minor's behavior on probation at JCC was inappropriate and disruptive, requiring his transfer to county jail.
We see no other arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order denying minor C.W. relief under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 is affirmed.