From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. F.R. (In re F.R.)

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jun 21, 2024
No. F086747 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2024)

Opinion

F086747

06-21-2024

In re F.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. F.R., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Justin Behravesh, 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, Christopher J. Rench and Cameron M. Goodman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County Super. Ct. No. 23JL-00061A, Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge.

Justin Behravesh, 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, Christopher J. Rench and Cameron M. Goodman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT [*]

INTRODUCTION

F.R., a minor (minor), admitted to a single count of grand theft of a person in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (c). Minor was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court, removed from his mother's custody and committed to Bear Creek Academy short-term program, level two (Bear Creek). Minor argues the court erred because the placement was not the least restrictive alternative. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 14, 2023, the Merced County District Attorney filed a wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 602, subdivision (a) alleging minor committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1), with a gang enhancement (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), conspiracy to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and active participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a); count 3).

Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise designated.

On June 30, 2023, the juvenile court granted the People's motion to amend count 1 to grand theft from a person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)), minor admitted the amended count, and agreed that gang terms would be included in his deferred entry of judgement in exchange for dismissal of the gang enhancement and remaining counts.

On August 16, 2023, the juvenile court held a disposition hearing where it adjudged minor a ward of the court, placed minor under the general supervision of the probation officer for placement in the home of his mother, removed minor from his mother's custody pursuant to section 726, subdivision (a), and committed minor to Bear Creek. Minor's maximum confinement term was deemed the mid term of two years.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts are derived from the probation officer's social study report and recommendation filed July 14, 2023, regarding the April 14, 2023 wardship petition.

Circumstances of the Offense

On February 15, 2023, minor and two other juveniles were shopping at a gas station convenience store. The two other juveniles ran behind the counter where liquor bottles were located, and one of them grabbed a bottle while the other pushed the cashier into the alcohol display, causing him to fall. Minor was inside the store, standing by the door. All three minors then fled from the store.

On April 5, 2023, minor was identified as a suspect based on video surveillance footage. A Ramey warrant and search warrant was authorized for minor, he was served and his residence was searched. The search revealed several gang indicia, including minor's previous school's identification card with "X" and "DEL" written on it, which the reporting officer noted were Norteno related terms. Officers also found a red rag, which is a common color for Norteno gang members, and a drawing of a skull and rose with the words "killa Cali" and the number "730." The reporting officer indicated "730" is significant with the "Dead End Loc" Norteno gang, because if you flip the numbers upside down it spells out "DEL." Minor's door also had "DEL Free Jose" written on it.

People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3d 263.

Minor has a half brother, J.R., who is currently in custody at a juvenile justice facility facing murder and gun-related charges.

Placement Recommendation

The probation report recommended minor be placed into custody. The report first stated that minor's father was not part of minor's life, and minor's mother currently worked out of state for extended periods of time. The mother was working in the state of Washington since the end of June and planned to return to California at the end of July.

The report indicated minor had no absences or tardies since being enrolled in his current school, and the mother stated minor's behavior had been "ok" and was "kinda [sic] bad when he started school, but after attending [his current school] he has improved." The report indicated he had attended his current school for 129 days as of the writing of the report.

The report stated minor did not seem remorseful and stated he had nothing to say regarding the offense. Likewise, minor denied gang affiliation, however he has been validated as part of the Dead End Loc Norteno criminal street gang by the Merced Police Department. A home commitment was considered, however when minor was on home supervision pending the outcome of this case, he failed to comply with the rules of the monitor. Minor was constantly reminded to abide by the rules and at one point removed the monitor due to losing the battery to charge the unit.

The report recommended minor be adjudged a ward of the juvenile court and ordered into the Bear Creek program.

DISCUSSION

I. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion Committing Minor to Bear Creek Academy Short Term Program, Level 2.

Minor argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed him to Bear Creek, because the commitment was not the least restrictive alternative. We find substantial evidence supports the court's order, and it was not an abuse of discretion.

A. Background

A disposition hearing was held on August 16, 2023. Minor requested a deferred entry of judgment. Minor's counsel indicated minor was remorseful but had a language barrier and was a "quiet kid," which is why he didn't speak more with probation. Minor also stated he was doing well in school with no absences, tardies or suspensions, and was doing "okay" at home, but was improving.

The probation officer requested minor be committed. Probation stated minor was gang affiliated and there were concerns about supervision in the home. Probation argued "[h]e's not compliant with the monitor. Mom leaves the state for work and leaves him with ... a 19-year-old, so Probation is concerned about that." Probation also noted that minor's brother was in custody and heavily involved in gangs, and concluded minor required a higher level of supervision.

In addition to minor and his mother, three other people live in the household-minor's stepfather, age 36, minor's brother's girlfriend, age 19, and minor's nephew, age two.

The juvenile court found "[g]iven the representations by Probation and the potential for unsupervised . . . essentially for not being supervised while at home and then [his mother] is away from home for . . . significant period[s] of time-I would assume at times for work-I'm going to go ahead and order and adjudge him a ward of the court and place him under the general supervision of probation, subject to the rules and regulations of this Court for placement in the home of [his mother]."

"I'll find that he's a person described in Section 726 of the code, and that the welfare of the minor requires that custody be taken from the minor's parent or guardiancomplete custody." The juvenile court then committed minor to Bear Creek over minor's objection.

B. Legal Standard

"The purpose of the juvenile court law is 'to provide for the protection and safety of the public and each minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to preserve and strengthen the minor's family ties whenever possible, removing the minor from the custody of his or her parents only when necessary for his or her welfare or for the safety and protection of the public.... (§ 202, subd. (a).) 'Minors under the juvenile court's jurisdiction must receive the care, treatment, and guidance consistent with their best interest and the best interest of the public. (§ 202, subd. (b).) Additionally, minors who have committed crimes must receive the care, treatment, and guidance that holds them accountable for their behavior, is appropriate for their circumstances, and conforms with the interest of public safety and protection. (Ibid.) This guidance may include punishment that is consistent with the rehabilitative objectives. (Ibid.)'" (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1288.)

"Except as provided in Section 707, any minor who is between 12 years of age and 17 years of age, inclusive, when he or she violates any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime other than an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court." (§ 602, subd. (a).)

"In all cases in which a minor is adjudged a ward or dependent child of the court, the court may limit the control to be exercised over the ward or dependent child by any parent or guardian and shall, in its order, clearly and specifically set forth all those limitations, but no ward or dependent child shall be taken from the physical custody of a parent or guardian, unless upon the hearing the court finds .: [¶ ] . [¶ ] [t]hat the welfare of the minor requires that custody be taken from the minor's parent or guardian." (§ 726, subd. (a)(3).)

"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." (§ 725.5.) "When a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on the ground that they are a person described by Section 602, the court . as an additional alternative, may commit the minor to a juvenile home, ranch, camp, or forestry camp." (§ 730, subd. (a)(1).)

" '[T]he statutory scheme contemplates a progressively more restrictive and punitive series of dispositions starting with home placement under supervision, and progressing to foster home placement, placement in a local treatment facility, and finally placement at the [Department of Juvenile Justice].' [Citation.] Nevertheless, there is no rule that such a placement cannot be ordered unless less restrictive placements have been attempted, and there is no requirement that the juvenile court expressly state on the record the reasons for rejecting less restrictive placements." (In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1159.)

The Division of Juvenile Justice facilities have been closed effective July 1, 2023, pursuant to Senate Bill No. 823 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 337).

"We review a juvenile court's placement decision for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] '" '[A] trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.'"' [Citation.] Accordingly, we consider whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's commitment order consistent with the purpose of the juvenile court law. [Citations.] Substantial evidence, in turn, 'must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value; it must actually be "substantial" proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case.'" (In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 908.)

"In reviewing factual determinations for substantial evidence, a reviewing court should 'not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts.' [Citation.] The determinations should 'be upheld if ... supported by substantial evidence, even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court might have reached a different result had it believed other evidence.'" (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 640.)

C. Analysis

Minor argues his commitment to Bear Creek was not the least restrictive alternative, and was not supported by substantial evidence. Minor argues that he was only 14 years old when he committed the criminal offense, his participation was the least involved of the group, and this was his first offense. Minor further argues that he was remorseful but was unable to communicate well due to a language barrier, and that he has been doing well in school.

The juvenile court appears to have based its determination to place minor in Bear Creek primarily on the fact that minor's mother would spend significant periods of time away from the home for work. Additionally, the court was presented with evidence that minor had previously struggled to comply with home monitoring. It is reasonable for the court to conclude, from these two facts, that minor would not be sufficiently supervised at home if the court were to agree to a home commitment.

A codified purpose of juvenile court law is for minors who have committed crimes to receive care and guidance that holds them accountable for their behavior and conforms with the interest of public safety and protection. (§ 202, subd. (b).) That minor's custodial parent is absent from the home for substantial periods of time, and not just absent, but potentially out of state, creates a justifiable concern that minor will not receive proper care or guidance during a home commitment. This is especially troubling in the minor's case, where minor has been validated as a member of a Norteno subset and gang indicia were discovered in his room. Additionally, minor's previous challenges with home monitoring paired with minor's custodial parent's potential unavailability would compound any issues with minor's supervision in the home.

Minor argues he is being punished for his mother's choices. That is not the case. The juvenile court was exercising its discretion under section 730, subdivision (a)(1) after minor admitted the amended count, grand theft from a person, in the section 602, subdivision (a) petition filed by the People. That discretion includes in-custody placement at a local facility such as Bear Creek.

Minor presents evidence that mitigates his culpability in the underlying criminal offense and argues he was improving at home and at school. While that may be true, we cannot reweigh the evidence. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that minor would not be sufficiently supervised during a home commitment. Given minor's prior difficulties with home monitoring and validated gang membership, it is reasonable for the court to conclude that supervision is critical to minor's welfare, and therefore home commitment would not be appropriate as a less restrictive alternative to an in-custody commitment," 'even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists.....'" (In re Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 640.) The court need not "expressly state on the record the reasons for rejecting less restrictive placements." The court did not abuse its discretion committing minor to Bear Creek. (In re Nicole H., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 1159.)

II. The Minute Order Should Reflect the Maximum Term of Confinement

The attorney general argues the disposition order erroneously omits the maximum period of confinement-the middle term of two years. We agree.

"If the minor is removed from the physical custody of the minor's parent or guardian as the result of an order of wardship made pursuant to Section 602, the order shall specify that the minor may not be held in physical confinement for a period in excess of the middle term of imprisonment which could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the offense or offenses which brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court." (§ 726, subd. (d)(1).)

"A court shall not commit a juvenile to any juvenile facility for a period that exceeds the middle term of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense." (§ 730, subd. (a)(2).)

The middle term for grand theft from a person in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (c) is two years. (Pen. Code, §§ 489, subd. (c)(1), 1170, subd. (h)(1).)

In this case, the juvenile court orally announced a two-year maximum term. However, both the minute order from the disposition hearing and the disposition order omits the maximum period of confinement. We remand the case for the court to amend the minute order to reflect the two-year maximum period of confinement pursuant to section 726, subdivision (d)(1).

DISPOSITION

The matter is remanded for the juvenile court to amend the minute order to reflect the two-year maximum period of confinement pursuant to section 726, subdivision (d)(1). The court's August 16, 2023 disposition order is otherwise affirmed.

[*] Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Smith, J.


Summaries of

People v. F.R. (In re F.R.)

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jun 21, 2024
No. F086747 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2024)
Case details for

People v. F.R. (In re F.R.)

Case Details

Full title:In re F.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. F.R.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Jun 21, 2024

Citations

No. F086747 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2024)