Opinion
A152213
07-25-2018
In re DERRICK M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DERRICK 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JW16-6233)
Minor Derrick M. shot six students on a school campus, for which he admitted one count each of attempted murder with an enhancement for personal use of a firearm causing great bodily injury, assault with a firearm with an enhancement for great bodily injury, and personal discharge of a firearm in a school zone. He also shot a woman in her face with a paintball, for which he admitted one count of assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury. The juvenile court ordered him committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Juvenile Facilities(DJJ). He contends this commitment was an abuse of discretion because there was no evidence that he would probably benefit from a DJJ commitment and that a less restrictive placement would be ineffective or inappropriate. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
On October 24, 2016, the San Francisco District Attorney filed two Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petitions alleging that 17-year-old Derrick committed multiple criminal offenses. The first petition arose out of a May 11, 2016 incident in which Derrick shot at a woman's car with a paintball gun and then ran off. When he later encountered the same woman, he again shot at her car. When she told him she was going to contact the police, he responded, "Yo bitch calling the cops on me I'll fuck you up," and fired the paintball gun at her, striking her in the face with a paintball. The petition charged Derrick with misdemeanor vandalism and four felonies: assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, dissuading a witness by force or threat, and criminal threats.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
The second petition stemmed from an October 18, 2016 incident in which Derrick shot six students at a school. He and three companions arrived at the school just as school was about to let out. They approached a particular student—apparently, their intended target—and an argument ensued. At the urging of one of his companions, Derrick took out a handgun and fired at the student multiple times, hitting him and five other students, injuring one seriously. Derrick was charged with six counts of attempted premediated murder, six counts of assault with a firearm, and one count each of possession of a firearm on school grounds, discharging a firearm in a school zone, and carrying a loaded firearm. All counts alleged personal use of a firearm, and four counts alleged personal infliction of great bodily injury.
On June 2, 2017, Derrick admitted the following counts: from the first petition, assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury; from the second petition, one count each of attempted murder with an enhancement for personal use of a firearm causing great bodily injury, assault with a firearm with an enhancement for great bodily injury, and personal discharge of a firearm in a school zone. The remaining counts were dismissed.
In his disposition brief, the prosecutor provided additional details regarding the shooting that led to the second petition. A surveillance video showed Derrick and three companions approach a student on a school campus. Derrick fired a handgun at the student, hitting him and five other students, including one who was in a classroom and was shot in the abdomen. Police investigators recovered 11 bullet casings at the scene. The investigation also revealed that the shooting was a planned, coordinated attack in retaliation for a fight that had occurred 10 days earlier. In a text exchange between Derrick and one of his companions, the companion texted Derrick that he needed a gun, and Derrick responded he could get one.
At the time of the paintball and school shooting incidents, Derrick was on probation in Solano County. He had also completed a program at Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (Orin Allen), as well as a 90-day community supervision contract and a 12-week counseling group to address inappropriate sexual behavior at school.
The prosecutor recommended that Derrick be committed to the DJJ, advising the court he would benefit from the DJJ programs:
"DJJ provides many services and programs that would benefit Minor. When Minor first arrives at DJJ, he will go through the intake process where a comprehensive assessment is conducted and prepared, and a treatment plan established, thus forming a specific plan to address Minor's needs. During this process Minor will receive a mental health evaluation that could prompt referral to a psychologist if it is deemed necessary.
"DJJ utilizes an evidence based Intervention Strategies program which guides the services that the Minor will receive from the time he enters the DJJ facility until his re-entry into the community. There are a variety of interventions and programs that are used at DJJ and specific programs are utilized based on Minor's individual needs and risk level.
"1. Education. Minors who have attained either their high school diploma or equivalency are eligible to participate in post-secondary education programs or Career Technical Education as space allows. Minor can participate in secondary education programs.
"2. Substance Abuse. This program is designed for minors who have a moderate to high need of treatment. While Minor was on probation in Contra Costa County, he tested positive on 4 occasions for marijuana and therefore this program would benefit the Minor.
"3. Camp Programs. DJJ maintains a youth conservation camp at Pine Grove in Amador County. The major emphasis of the camp programs is to provide youths with employability skills and to develop a strong emphasis on solid work habits. Youths also receive leadership training within their crew structure. The training is provided by CAL Fire, and youths become certified to engage in wild land firefighting operations.
"4. Re-entry. DJJ incorporates a re-entry program with pre-release planning in an effort to help a minor reintegrate into the community upon their release."
The prosecutor concluded with the following: "It is apparent that efforts to have the Minor to lead a law abiding life have failed. But more importantly and of paramount concern is the Safety of the Public. If the Minor is not in a secure facility, Public Safety will be endangered. The Minor has shown the ability to obtain a firearm and he has shown the callousness and depravity to use it. Minor is a serious public safety risk and placement in a non-secured facility is not in his best interest nor the Community's."
Derrick's disposition brief detailed the circumstances of his upbringing, noting that he "suffered tragedy early in life, with the loss and death of his father, his mother's separation from his step-father, and the death of a close cousin in street violence three years ago." During his early years, he lived in San Francisco, but he and his mother then moved to Antioch, where he was involved in two instances of theft, described as "Misdemeanor petty theft for stealing a video component from a store, and Felony 459 for acting as a 'lookout' for friends who broke into a residence." For these offenses, he was sent to the Orin Allen ranch program. Derrick and his mother subsequently returned to San Francisco, where Derrick renewed connections with friends from his old San Francisco neighborhood—friends with gang connections. Although Derrick moved out of San Francisco and enrolled in a school in Oakland for his senior year of high school, he maintained these gang connections, which ultimately led to the conflict with the target of the school shooting.
Despite these troubles, Derrick had a decent academic record leading up to his arrest, having maintained a 3.29 grade point average while in San Francisco. He had been in custody at juvenile hall since his arrest and was earning a 4.0 grade point average.
Concerning the October 18 shooting, Derrick's disposition brief labeled his actions "unquestionably serious and reckless" but claimed "this incident was not a 'school shooting'; it was a confrontation between two groups outside of June Jordan High School." Derrick claimed he brought the gun with him for protection and only fired after someone shouted that someone in the rival group was reaching for a gun. He "genuinely regret[ted] his actions—which he thought of as defending his friends," and was especially remorseful that one student was seriously injured.
Derrick requested placement at Glen Mills Schools (Glen Mills) in Pennsylvania, which he described as "a national model program for balanced, restorative justice and rehabilitation, dealing with youths who have committed the most serious crimes from around the country." Glen Mills initially declined to admit him due to the seriousness of his actions and the charges against him, but it later accepted him after he provided a personal statement and information about his academic abilities and family support.
Derrick contended the DJJ was not an appropriate placement, relying primarily on an August 2016 report prepared by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ). The report described the environment of the DJJ as " 'prison like' " and stated that incarceration at the DJJ " 'retraumatizes youth who have previously been exposed to violence, abuse and other types of adverse childhood experiences. . . .' " Also according to the report, although the DJJ population had decreased almost 30 percent over the past five years, the incidents of violence had increased 86 percent. And despite the decrease in population, the living units still housed more youth than the nationally recommended maximum.
Derrick also cited an April 2017 CJCJ report on DJJ costs and recidivism rates. It reported that the cost per inmate had drastically increased over recent years, to $271,318 for the fiscal year 2016-2017, while the three-year recidivism rates were 74 percent for re-arrest, over 50 percent for re-conviction, and 37 percent for return to DJJ or prison custody.
Derrick urged the court not to send him "down the 'Pipeline to Prison' . . ." He was aware he had admitted two strikes and that this was his "very last chance to make his future worthwhile." For less cost and trauma than a DJJ commitment, he asked that he be allowed to participate in the Glen Mills program and continue on to higher education.
In support of his brief, Derrick submitted letters from teachers at juvenile hall; school transcripts dating back to his freshman year in high school showing an improvement from straight F's to straight A's and a cumulative grade point average of 3.35; letters from two colleges inviting Derrick to apply and from four colleges accepting him; letters of support from family and community members; information about Glen Mills; and the August 2016 and April 2017 CJCJ reports.
The probation department also submitted a disposition report, although it reserved its recommendation on the appropriate disposition until its multidisciplinary team had reviewed the matter. Nevertheless, it advised the court that Derrick had failed to rehabilitate despite prior opportunities and that he would benefit from a DJJ commitment:
"The minor was unable to be rehabilitated with the services which were in place in Contra Costa County. After completing services which were described above, the minor was unable to comply with the Orders of Probation and eventually there was a petition of violation of probation for failing drug tests.
"Even though he completed services, it is evident that they were of no help as he committed the two exceedingly egregious crimes for which he is before the Court. The minor has definitely been given a generous opportunity to receive rehabilitative services as a juvenile. He has proven that services while remaining in the community are currently incapable of meeting his needs nor the needs of the public—which is safety.
"The Department of Juvenile Justice is equipped at rehabilitating young men with many revamped programs.
"The minor has a maximum confinement time of 38 years to life. The Department of Juvenile Justice is the best place suited for minors who commit these types [of] offenses. DJJ will attempt to rehabilitate the minor while keeping the public safe."
Further, the probation department did not believe Derrick was eligible for Glen Mills because he would turn 18 years old in two weeks.
In an addendum to its disposition report, the probation department advised that its multidisciplinary team had recommended a DJJ commitment because Derrick had "left many students/people traumatized, he put many people's lives in danger, he has received community intervention including a ranch program and it is clear those interventions failed, and minor's criminal behavior in the community has escalated." The team believed the safety of the community required Derrick's placement in a long-term structured environment where he could receive services to address his gang affiliations, educational needs, and the trauma he caused his victims and the community.
At the outset of the June 16, 2017 disposition hearing, Derrick's counsel submitted the following additional documents: a certificate of completion of the Orin Allen program, a National Society of High School Scholars award certificate, a letter from Derrick's grandfather, and a letter of apology from Derrick to the court.
Derrick's counsel also informed the court that according to Glen Mills the fact Derrick would soon be turning 18 years old was "not a problem" and would not affect the admission decision.
The prosecutor adhered to his position that a DJJ commitment was the appropriate disposition:
"Our view is that an out-of-home placement commitment, even though it's out of state, is actually a step down from what the minor has already received. So he was at a ranch facility previously that's comparable to Log Cabin Ranch and we believe he requires a more highly structured and secure environment to work on his rehabilitation.
"I'd like to note that DJJ, which is not included in what Petitioner has filed, the programming that I'd also like to have the Court consider is the mental health treatment that's received there for aggression interruption, training addressing antisocial attitudes and negative peer influences. They have a trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, advanced practices where they have additional opportunities to practice the learned skills that they will have there. He'll be potentially doing some interactive journaling to have additional reflection and there is behavior treatment prevention interventions.
"In addition, what I find most also beneficial at DJJ that's not mentioned is the fact that there's Impact which is a gang intervention program. This minor is affiliated with Double Rock and we believe that Glen Mills does not have a similar-type program to address gang affiliation. . . .
"This minor has had contacts since 2013 when he was 13 years old, so he has been going through the system. His most recent offense before shooting at a school and actually hitting people with bullets was an incident when he was 16 where he shot people with a [paint] gun.
"Looking at these two incidences that are the most close in time, his actions show that he has no aversion to hurting people with weapons, to actually finding a gun and shooting it at people in our community. And I know the Court understands the facts of this case. I just—these facts show that he has no regard for human life. That this planned incident that he planned with two other people—there was a get-away driver . . .—he had no empathy at that time. So I understand he is writing an apology letter now after he has been caught, but all of his actions that led up to that day show the Court, show the community that he has no regard for human life.
"Six people were hit, one of them in the abdomen and she was in critical condition. I know the Court understands this. I just think that it should be on the record that this type of offense is one of the most serious that we will ever see here. And this is the type of case that's appropriate for a commitment . . . to DJJ. This total lack of regard for human life and shooting at people as a gang revenge, as a retaliation. And gang contacts and affiliation doesn't just end. It's a process. And this minor has to work through a process of disaffiliating from a gang and turning his life around. The reckless decision making—I think this also shows he has anger control problems. He lacks moral reasoning and all of these issues can be adequately addressed at DJJ.
"We don't believe that Glen Mills, an unsecured facility, is an appropriate disposition for this minor based on the facts of this case, based on his prior history which the Court has seen in the probation report, all the contacts he's had and his inability to rehabilitate. This minor is going to be 18 in about two weeks and the most appropriate place for him is DJJ where it is secure, there can be no AWOL, and he can receive the services that are outlined. And I know the Court knows about the different programming with education and advanced education that can be also achieved at DJJ. Skills like working on computers that they have at DJJ. . . ."
After Derrick's counsel responded to many of the statements made by the prosecutor, the court issued its ruling:
"Based upon the evidence presented to the Court and the young person's prior record and the underlying facts and circumstances of this particular case, the Court does feel that DJJ is an appropriate disposition for the young person. Court will make those findings and orders. However, the Court will give young person a chance to go to Glen Mills, but Glen Mills only. If on the placement calendar probation gets word from Glen Mills that they have rescinded or are not going to accept him, then the commitment will be to DJJ. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]
"The Court feels fully satisfied that the mental and physical conditions and the qualifications of the minor are such as to render it probable that the minor will be benefited by the reformatory, educational, discipline or other treatment provided by DJJ. [¶] . . . [¶]
"In terms of the potential DJJ order, depending upon the information from Glen Mills, the Court has considered a number of factors, including the seriousness of the conduct, the need to protect society, the value of imposing discipline and accountability, the extent of the minor's need for a structured institutional setting. Another factor is the young person's prior contacts in Solano County. The Court does note that Solano County sent the young person directly to their ranch program, did not try any less alternatives—less-restrictive alternatives prior to the Orin Allen program.
"The Court does note that the young person has been on wardship probation where he did a ranch program in Solano and yet he has reoffended. An out-of-home placement has not been tried in the past. And actually at home on probation has not been tried in the past.
"The Court has also considered the professional help, intensive counseling and school programs provided by the Division of Juvenile Justice."
An order entered that day declared Derrick a ward of the court and ordered him committed to the DJJ, but stayed that commitment pending acceptance at and successful completion of the Glen Mills program.
Ten days after the disposition hearing, Glen Mills rescinded its acceptance of Derrick, citing his "prior history and charges and violations" which where not wholly known to Glen Mills at the time it accepted him and which "speak of a young man who has already been given more than one second chance."
On July 13, the court vacated its order that Derrick complete the Glen Mills program and ordered him committed to the DJJ.
Derrick filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Applicable Law: The Statutory Framework
"The purpose of juvenile delinquency laws is twofold: (1) to serve the 'best interests' of the delinquent ward by providing care, treatment, and guidance to rehabilitate the ward and 'enable him or her to be a law-abiding and productive member of his or her family and the community,' and (2) to 'provide for the protection and safety of the public . . . .' " (In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 614-615, quoting § 202, subds. (a), (b) & (d).) Section 202 was amended in 1984 to shift "its emphasis from a primarily less restrictive alternative approach oriented towards the benefit of the minor to the express 'protection and safety of the public.' " (In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1396 (Michael D.); see also In re Javier A. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 913, 958.) At disposition, the juvenile court must act consistently with these purposes. (In re Schmidt (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 694, 716.)
In making its dispositional order, the court must "consider 'the broadest range of information' in determining how best to rehabilitate a minor and afford him adequate care." (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329 (Robert H.), quoting In re Jimmy P. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1679, 1684.) In addition to any other relevant and material evidence, the court should also consider "(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." (§ 725.5.)
In order to commit a minor to the DJJ, "there must be evidence in the record demonstrating both a probable benefit to the minor by a [DJJ] commitment and the inappropriateness or ineffectiveness of less restrictive alternatives." (In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396; accord, In re George M. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 376, 379; Michael D., supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1396; see also § 734 ["No ward of the juvenile court shall be committed to the [DJJ] unless the judge of the court is fully satisfied that the mental and physical condition and qualifications of the ward are such as to render it probable that he [or she] will be benefited by the reformatory educational discipline or other treatment provided by the [DJJ]."].) While greater emphasis has been placed on "punishment for rehabilitative purposes and on a restrictive commitment as a means of protecting the public safety," commitment to the DJJ cannot be based exclusively on retribution. (Michael D., supra, p. 1396.)
Applicable Law: Standard of Review
We review the juvenile court's decision to commit Derrick to the DJJ for abuse of discretion. (Robert H., supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1329-1330; In re Asean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 473; see also In re Emmanuel R. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 452, 465, [" ' " 'The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.' " ' "].) "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." (Michael D., supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1395; accord, Robert H., supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1329-1330; In re Asean D., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 473.) Substantial evidence is " 'evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value . . . .' " (In re Paul C. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 43, 52.) In determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the commitment, we must examine the record presented at the disposition hearing in light of the purposes of the juvenile court law.
The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Committing Derrick to the DJJ
As noted, the juvenile court found it was probable Derrick would benefit from a DJJ commitment. There is substantial evidence supporting that finding. Specifically, the court believed that given Derrick's circumstances, he would benefit from the reformatory and disciplinary nature of a structured institutional setting. He had failed at prior rehabilitation attempts and his misconduct had escalated, indeed turning very violent. The DJJ will provide a secure environment where he can receive professional help and intensive counseling and recommit to his rehabilitation.
While the above is enough to show a probable benefit, the court also had before it information indicating that the DJJ would offer services that would benefit Derrick. Upon his arrival at the DJJ, he would go through the intake process where a comprehensive assessment would be conducted and a treatment plan established, thus forming a plan to address his specific needs. This assessment would include a mental health evaluation that could prompt referral to a psychologist if it was deemed necessary. The DJJ's evidence-based Intervention Strategies program would then guide the services he would receive from the time he entered the program until his re-entry into the community. Derrick has expressed a desire to pursue higher education, and he will be able to participate in the DJJ's post-secondary education program after obtaining his high school diploma or its equivalent. He can also participate in a substance abuse treatment program if it is determined he needs treatment for his marijuana use; a camp program to teach him job and leadership skills and solid work habits; and a re-entry program to help him reintegrate into the community. Derrick can also participate in long-term programs to address his gang affiliations, educational needs, and the trauma he inflicted on his victims and the community.
Derrick argues this is not sufficient because the juvenile court failed to identify the specific DJJ services from which he will benefit: "For there to be a probable benefit, and indeed for that requirement to have any practical meaning, there must be evidence showing that the DJJ commitment will meet his needs, i.e., there must be substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate that he will likely benefit from the specific environment at, and programs offered by DJJ. Benefit cannot be assumed simply because he needs to be removed from the community for a time, or held accountable, or is technically eligible for the commitment. Rather, there must be evidence that DJJ will provide, in an appropriate environment, the services necessary to Derrick's individual rehabilitation." Derrick cites no authority requiring the juvenile court to list the specific programs that will aid him in his rehabilitation, and courts have expressly recognized that the court is not obligated to do so. As stated in In re Robert D. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 767, 773, "By statutory mandate, the juvenile court must find such commitment to be a probable benefit to the minor. [Citation.] However, the specific reasons for such commitment need not be stated in the record." (Accord, In re Jose R. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 55, 59.)
In re Jonathan T. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 474 is instructive. There, the minor, who had been committed to the DJJ, argued on appeal that the juvenile court did not find how he would benefit from a DJJ commitment, as the court merely stated it " 'would anticipate [minor's rehabilitative needs] would be addressed by the programs [minor] would participate in at [DJJ].' " The Court of Appeal rejected the minor's argument, stating, "A juvenile court must determine if the record supports a finding that it is probable the minor will benefit from being committed to DJJ. [Citation.] In the instant case, we infer the juvenile court found it was probable minor would benefit from being committed to DJJ, because it anticipated minor's needs would be addressed by programs offered at DJJ. There is no requirement that the court find exactly how a minor will benefit from being committed to DJJ. The court is only required to find if it is probable a minor will benefit from being committed, and the court did so in this case." (Id. at p. 486.)
Additionally, the minor in In re Jonathan T., like Derrick here, cited various reports about the poor care minors receive at the DJJ to support his claim that he was not likely to benefit from a DJJ commitment. The Court of Appeal also rejected that argument, reasoning, "As noted by the juvenile court, minor will benefit from commitment to DJJ, in part, because it will provide him with a secure environment. In other words, it is not merely the programs at DJJ which provide a benefit to minor, but the secure setting as well. Minor requires a secure setting for his rehabilitative care, because at the age of 14, minor violently attacked another person, ran away from home, and acted in a hostile, disrespectful, and aggressive manner with staff at juvenile hall. In sum, we are unconvinced by minor's argument that he will not benefit from being committed to DJJ due to its allegedly subpar programs." (In re Jonathan T., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 486.) The same reasoning applies here.
Turning to the second prerequisite for a DJJ commitment, there is substantial evidence that there was no suitable less restrictive alternative to the DJJ. Derrick had been afforded less restrictive opportunities at rehabilitation in the past, including a ranch program and probation, but despite this he escalated his criminal behavior, committing two shootings and injuring seven people. He has proven willing to arm himself and, worse, to use that firearm in a manner evidencing a complete lack of regard for human life. These facts support the juvenile court's conclusion that nothing short of a locked facility would be adequate to protect the public. Derrick submits that "placement at a ranch or in any high security facility would accomplish that purpose," but he had already completed a ranch program yet went on to commit to two serious shooting offenses. It was reasonable for the juvenile court to find that these circumstances necessitated a DJJ commitment.
Additionally, the gravity of the offense is "by statute a proper consideration at disposition [(§ 725.5)]." (Robert H., supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330.) While it is easy to focus on the school shooting, it is important not to overlook the severity of Derrick's earlier offense. After threatening the victim that he would "fuck [her] up" if she reported him to the police, Derrick shot her in the face with a paintball. This was no trivial matter, as a paintball can inflict serious injury, and the victim could have suffered permanent damage, including loss of vision if he had shot her in the eye. And the school shooting—which Derrick has said was not a "school shooting"—could have left upwards of 11 children dead. Derrick's conduct in both instances evidenced a complete and utter lack of regard for the life and wellbeing of others.
The gist of Derrick's argument that there was insufficient evidence that a less restrictive alternative would be ineffective or inappropriate is that the probation department failed to investigate or consider other placements. Specifically, he claims, "[B]efore [the court] can find that no appropriate alternative placements exist, the juvenile court must actually consider and reject a sufficient number and range of potential alternatives . . . ." Apparently as he would have it, the probation department must go through a list of possible placements and determine whether or not each place would be suitable for the minor; only after it has excluded each one can the court then order a DJJ commitment. In support, Derrick discusses In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285 at length, contending it stands for the proposition that "before the court can conclude that no appropriate alternative placements exist, it must be fully informed about the existence of those alternatives, and actually consider and reject a sufficient number and range of them." That is not what the case held, and the case is in fact unavailing.
In In re Khalid B., supra, 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, the juvenile court ordered the minor placed at an out-of-state facility. (Id. at p. 1287.) The Court of Appeal reversed, agreeing with the minor that the commitment was an abuse of discretion because the court failed to follow the dictates of section 727.1, subdivision (b)(1), which allows for out-of-state placement only if in-state facilities are "unavailable or inadequate to meet the needs of the minor." The probation department had considered two in-state facilities and rejected them as inadequate, but it had failed to consider and rule out other in-state facilities, including three recommended by minor's counsel. (Id. at p. 1289.) Thus, the court held, "In the absence of evidence that other in-state programs were found to be either unavailable or inadequate, the Department's effort fails to comply with the mandate of section 727.1(b)(1)." (Id. at p. 1290.) This holding has no applicability here, where compliance with section 727.1, subdivision (b)(1) is not at issue.
Here, the law required the court to find that there was no suitable less restrictive alternative to the DJJ. (§ 734.) That is precisely what it did: it considered Derrick's individual circumstances—that he previously completed a ranch program, that he was on probation, that he shot seven people—and decided that nothing short of a highly structured environment at a locked facility would be adequate.
DISPOSITION
The disposition of the juvenile court is affirmed.
/s/_________
Richman, J. We concur: /s/_________
Kline, P.J. /s/_________
Stewart, J.