Opinion
E082530
04-16-2024
In re G.M.-V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. G.M.-V., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Maxine Hart, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. DLRI2300011 Mark E. Petersen, Judge. Affirmed.
Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Maxine Hart, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKINSTER J.
In 2023, two separate juvenile wardship petitions alleged that minor and appellant G.M.-V. committed various felonies (including robbery and assault) when he was 16 years old. Subsequently, the juvenile court transferred jurisdiction over him to an adult court of criminal jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 (section 707). On appeal, minor contends the court failed to state reasons supporting its finding he was not amenable to rehabilitation while under juvenile jurisdiction as required by section 707, subdivision (a)(3) and In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416. He further contends the court's "generalized conclusions were insufficient to support its finding." We disagree and affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS
A. Underlying Offenses.
On January 13, 2023, at approximately 1:08 a.m., minor (born in July 2006) was a passenger in a sedan that led officers on a high-speed chase. When the pursuit ended, minor was detained and searched. Officers recovered a Polymer 80 semiautomatic handgun (without any serial numbers) that had no rounds in the chamber, but the magazine contained four nine-millimeter rounds. A separate search of the vehicle produced another Polymer 80 semiautomatic handgun (without any serial numbers) with no rounds in the chamber and a magazine containing four nine-millimeter rounds. Minor was taken into custody, and the Riverside County District Attorney filed a wardship petition (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) alleging that he willfully and unlawfully carried a loaded firearm and he was not the registered owner (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(6)). On February 16, 2023, minor admitted the charge; the juvenile court declared him a ward of the court and placed him on probation for two years under the custody of his parents.
On March 9, 2023, sheriff's deputies were dispatched to a smoke shop in Jurupa Valley in response to an armed robbery by seven suspects, two of whom were armed. The suspects, including minor, took cash from the register, vape pens, arcade gaming consoles and miscellaneous merchandise, totaling approximately $6,300 Deputies tracked the suspects to a motel, searched the room they had used, and recovered merchandise that was similar to the stolen items. They served a search warrant for minor on March 21, took him into custody, and booked him into the county's juvenile detention and treatment center. On March 22, 2023, the Riverside County District Attorney filed a wardship petition alleging that he robbed (Pen. Code, § 211), assaulted (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), and falsely imprisoned (Pen. Code, § 236) John Doe on March 9, 2023.
B. Motion to Transfer and Hearing.
The People moved to transfer minor to an adult court of criminal jurisdiction, based on the probation report. Minor's counsel opposed the motion and offered the report of Gimel Rogers, Psy.D., a licensed psychologist, who interviewed minor. The transfer hearing was held on October 2, 2023. The juvenile court was presented with the following evidence:
1. The Probation Report.
a. Degree of Criminal Sophistication.
The level of criminal sophistication was "high" because a driver was hired to provide transportation without knowing the full details of the plan; the vehicles were parked facing away from the shop to facilitate efficient loading of stolen items and a fast exit; there was coordination as the suspects dispersed into all areas of the shop to maximize the amount of merchandise, property, and cash taken; minor was identified as using a backpack to load the items; one suspect kept time and yelled, "Time's up, time to go!" to ensure that all left before law enforcement was able to respond; and they reconvened at a motel in a different city to redistribute the stolen items and gradually leave in smaller groups. Minor is criminally sophisticated given the "elements of the offense, his previous criminal history, [and] his continued association with admitted gang members and their associates." All of minor's offenses have involved violence, the most recent employing the use of firearms that he was able to procure despite his familiarity to law enforcement. According to the probation officer, minor had no mental diagnosis that would indicate a lesser understanding of the seriousness of the charged offenses, appeared to display an appropriate level of maturity, appeared confident in his demeanor and responses, and conducted himself in a respectful manner.
b. Rehabilitation Before Expiration of Juvenile Jurisdiction.
Minor was 16 years 10 months old, leaving approximately seven years of rehabilitative efforts. Minor appeared to not have taken his wardship seriously, given a new petition was filed 35 days after he was declared a ward of the court. The gravity of minor's offenses escalated and his performance on probation was poor, which "lends doubt to his amenability to treatment." According to the probation officer, minor's "poor behavior in juvenile hall demonstrates he is not taking his pending charges seriously, as he has not shown any attempts to change his behaviors despite being in a secured setting." Nonetheless, the officer commented that "anything is possible over the approximate seven-year period should minor commit himself to change his behavior. As such, there is a possibility he could be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction." The report noted Pathways to Success as a secure facility and suggested the following evidence-based programs: aggression replacement training, moral recognition therapy, seeking safety, forward thinking, thinking for a change, social awareness programming, gender-specific programming, individual therapy, group therapy, family therapy, psychiatric services, and trauma focused-cognitive behavioral therapy. The officer believed, "minor is appropriate to remain under juvenile court jurisdiction."
c. Previous Delinquent History.
Minor was first referred to the juvenile justice system on December 21, 2021. Since then he added two additional referrals with one sustained petition, was declared a ward of the court, used marijuana on probation, violated home curfews, accrued three disciplinary referrals during his brief return to school, and exhibited gang behavior. The probation officer suspected minor's delinquent behavior stemmed from a lack of proper parental supervision, lack of accountability, and his parents' failure to adhere to the court's orders. Minor deceives and manipulates his parents into believing he is innocent; his parents avoid asking him whom he spends time with and fail to educate themselves on the signs of substance use. His mother assisted him in violating the rules of juvenile hall by conducting three-way calls to his girlfriend. The officer opined that minor continues to escalate his delinquent behaviors placing himself and the community at risk.
d. Success of Previous Attempts by the Juvenile Court to Rehabilitate Minor.
Previous attempts to rehabilitate minor have been ineffective because he continues to display the same pattern of negative behavior at school, use marijuana, and associate with gang members. He promised his parents that he would not put them in this situation again; however, this promise was insincere because he made no changes. Minor and his parents failed to make themselves available to probation and participate in the services offered to them.
e. Circumstances and Gravity of Alleged Offenses.
The alleged offenses were committed approximately five minutes before the shop closed, during a vulnerable time when there were few customers. The victim was held at gunpoint by at least five suspects and falsely imprisoned. The use of firearms demonstrates a blatant disregard for the well-being and safety of the victim and the community. Although the victim was not physically harmed, he now has difficulty sleeping due to the trauma of having several guns pointed at his head.
2. The Defense's Expert Report.
Dr. Rogers evaluated minor on June 22, 2023. She cautioned that her opinion was limited by (1) minor's parents' inability to speak or understand English well enough to provide information about his developmental history, and (2) minor's statements being contradictory to his record. Minor had endured frequent relocations and was disciplined by being hit with a belt, having his phone taken away, or being confined to the house. Nonetheless, he describes his childhood as "cool" and his relationship with both parents as good. He admitted that he listens to his parents "sometimes," violates his home curfew, skips school, smokes marijuana, gets angry when his parents ask about his friends who are not good influences, and has stolen a car with one friend. Minor denies being affiliated with a gang or tagging crew, but the probation report notes he has exhibited gang behavior, is affiliated with the West Side Rivas Gang, and possesses "several gang indicia." He was in about 10 fights, but claims he manages his emotions.
Minor was suspended in the sixth grade and expelled from school in the 10th grade. He attended school to be with his friends and described the classes as boring; he did not have an individualized education program or 504 Plan. Overall, his attendance was less than 50 percent, he was failing his classes, and he had received disciplinary referrals for being disrespectful toward staff, defiant, possessing marijuana, and using foul language. Although he claims that he wants to do better, he has a 0.38 grade point average and has completed 10 credits toward a high school diploma.
Minor denies having any physical or mental issues, but admits to acting without thinking in bad situations, i.e., stealing. He describes his community as unsafe, explaining that he witnessed people get robbed and jumped. In his home, the bills were not always paid and thus he had to take cold showers and there was no gas to cook food; this affected him more than the frequent relocations. His most stressful and traumatic experience was the death of his brother from a car accident. Minor describes himself as someone who likes being on his own, is not a leader, but goes with the flow. Regarding sports, he claimed that he played soccer until his team dismantled because the coaches stopped showing up, but records indicate he stopped playing due to a friend's negative influence. Minor believes he can achieve his goals if he stays on the right path; his current plan is to graduate from high school.
Minor drinks alcohol a few times each week and smokes marijuana on a regular basis. He was not fully forthcoming about his criminal history; however, Dr. Rogers consulted the probation report. He is currently in juvenile hall; the staff reports that he "has been 'too comfortable' and has gotten into two near altercations and three fights, including participating in a riot on 04/06/2023." Minor indicates that he cares about his future and will remain compliant if he is allowed to remain at juvenile hall. Dr. Rogers was informed that when his parents asked what happened, he replied, "Do you prefer I be dead or locked up?" suggesting that if he reveals what really happened, his life would be in jeopardy. However, he denies saying this and continues providing evasive responses to questions. Other than possessing a firearm, minor denies all other charges, denies having escalating behavior, and claims his stupid choices got him in trouble with the law.
According to Dr. Rogers, minor was coherent and linear in his thought processes even though his responses were evasive, he did not directly answer the questions, and his statements were contradictory to the records. Minor's scores fell below average to average, his IQ ranges from 79-88 with 95 percent confidence, and his overall intellectual functioning falls at the 13th percentile compared to same-aged peers. Dr. Rogers ruled out a learning disability due to the discrepancy in his scores. Test results revealed acting out behaviors, anxious distress, worry, disregard for social standards, poor self-esteem, unpredictable moods, high levels of anger, dysfunctional eating patterns, a need for adaptive skills, moderate antisocial attitudes, and low crimogenic characteristics.
In Dr. Rogers' opinion, minor presents as a reactive aggressive youth, characterized as having a short temper, hostile intention, lack of behavioral control, and retaliatory and emotionally labile behaviors. His family environment created distress that interfered with developing healthy peer relationships and led him toward further dysfunction. Poor coping skills and substance use exacerbated the effects of his low mood state. Dr. Rogers noted that minor suffered instability in his home life, did not always have his basic needs met, possessed an immature way of thinking, and presented as more reactive and slightly impulsive. He identified his behavior as worsening when he socializes with negative peer influences (gang members) and his parents fail to stop his behavior.
According to Dr. Rogers, minor can be rehabilitated in juvenile court because he has approximately seven years and he would be under the jurisdiction of the court, as opposed to being in the community under the supervision of his parents. She cautioned that the adult system may have a negative effect on his personal development, identity, relationships, learning, and growth because studies show that transferred youth are more likely to commit criminal acts than adolescents kept in the juvenile justice system. Also, adolescents are more likely to be victimized in the adult system and youth such as minor may align with maladaptive peers for survival; however, staying in a system focused on rehabilitation will allow minor to heal and thrive. Dr. Rogers recommended that minor develop an exclusively prosocial peer group given the correlation between antisocial peers and increased risk for violence and receive anger management training and individual therapy to develop insight into his reactivity and behaviors, as well as to develop alternative solutions and coping strategies for managing provocation in the future. She suggested Dialectical-Behavior Therapy to assist with addressing distress tolerance, emotion regulation, healthy relationships, and improvement in his self-concept.
3. Argument Presented to the Juvenile Court.
Relying on the probation report, the prosecutor argued the robbery demonstrated criminal sophistication as evidenced by the robbers' uniformity of dress concealing their identities, their knowledge of "exactly where to go" and "what their roles were," their timing, and holding the victim hostage at gunpoint. She asserted the robbery required minor's involvement and planning because "there's no way this could have been executed without everybody having known their roles ahead of time." The robbers had "clearly surveilled" the store and chose a time when there were the least number of customers and the employees were counting the money. According to the prosecutor, minor is sophisticated enough to present a certain way to "gain his parents' trust in believing he's doing well in school when he really was not."
Regarding rehabilitation, the prosecutor pointed out the probation officer's belief that minor could be rehabilitated prior to expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction because "anything is possible." However, she argued the belief that "anything is possible is not an indicator." Rather, an indicator is minor's prior performance on probation, which the prosecutor described as "abysmal." She acknowledged that minor has only two filed petitions, but noted he "has had multiple incidents of delinquency in regard to using drugs . . . hanging out with gang members . . . not following rules at home,. . . fighting at school, . . . asking another student where are they from when we know he bangs[, a]nd then we culminate that with [possession of] a loaded firearm just months prior" when he was captured following a "really dangerous 2800.2 pursuit" in a vehicle and after fleeing on foot. She concurred with the probation officer's recommendation to transfer minor since his recent armed robbery demonstrates "weapons use, violence, [and] victimization of the public."
Regarding previous rehabilitation attempts, the prosecutor pointed out minor failed to take advantage of the programs offered; he was dropped off at Project Bridge but never attended, and his mother never initiated Wraparound Services. Finally, concerning the circumstances and gravity of the offense, she reiterated the fact that minor participated in "an armed robbery where the victim [was] held in the corner at gunpoint with his girlfriend outside not knowing if he or she [was] going to get shot or [was] going to live. So [minor] is definitely demonstrating weapons use, violence, victimization of the public." The prosecutor agreed with the recommendation to transfer minor based on four of the five criteria.
Regarding the psychological evaluation, the prosecutor noted Dr. Rogers' admission that she "was very limited" in what she was able to base her evaluation on because the records were limited, she was unable to interview the parents, and she was left with self-reporting for most of the evaluation. Dr. Rogers found minor to have a below average to average IQ; however, he was suspended and expelled from school despite having a "cool" childhood and a "good" relationship with his parents. Minor's "only reason" for going to school was to "hang out with his friends." According to the prosecutor, minor's low IQ was due to his failure to attend school. While minor suffered the loss of his brother and had heard his parents fight, she argued "there is nothing special about that situation." Contrary to the defense and Dr. Rogers' assertion that minor lacked support, the prosecutor argued minor's mother "is the most supportive mother that [she has] seen[,] . . . to the point of enabling and lying for him .... He was not abused." She closed by submitting on the probation officer's report.
In response, defense counsel conceded that a "highly sophisticated crime" was committed; however, she urged the juvenile court to consider who "planned and orchestrated" it, namely, two adults ages 50 and 36 years old. She described these adults as the "masterminds" who needed "some naive, young juveniles to help perpetrate this crime." Regarding rehabilitation, she emphasized the probation officer's conclusion that there was sufficient time to rehabilitate minor because there is "practically seven years, to work with [him], to provide him supervision, consistent support, whether it be medication, academic, emotional." Counsel argued the court needs to focus on whether there are services in place, and whether minor is amenable to those services. She noted Dr. Rogers' observation that minor lacked peer influences. Nonetheless, the expert opined that he is amenable, and should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate.
Concerning minor's delinquent history, defense counsel directed the court to Dr. Rogers' evaluation, which provides some insight into minor, his mental capabilities, his childhood traumas, and his family. She asserted that minor has a history of "physical abuse, lack of basic necessities being met, instability in the home, [and] lack of consistent parental management. He had the tragic death of his brother. He's seen community violence. He's suffered from negative peer influence, anxious distress, poor academic performance, low self-esteem[,] and lack of anger regulation." Counsel excused minor's failed rehabilitation attempt due to insufficient time for probation to work with him. Lastly, she conceded the gravity element, noting it was "obviously an egregious crime."
In rebuttal, the prosecutor emphasized the limitations on the evaluation identified by Dr. Ropers, stating "the records were very limited[, minor's] parents were unable to be interviewed because they did not speak or understand English well enough to participate[,]" minor's statements were contradictory to the records, and his responses were evasive. She disagreed with the assertion that his childhood was terrible, arguing being spanked with a belt as means of discipline is not uncommon and "does not mean he was physically abused as a child."
4. The Ruling.
The juvenile court took the matter under submission. After evaluating the five criteria specified in section 707, subdivision (a)(3), based on the evidence presented by counsel, the court concluded the prosecution met its burden by clear and convincing evidence based upon the totality of the circumstances and granted the motion to transfer. The court stated minor was 16 years seven months old at the time he committed the charged offenses. Regarding criminal sophistication, the court noted that in committing the offenses minor and several others secured approximately five firearms prior to going to the location, used two vehicles, planned to carry out the crime with getaway vehicles and firearms, and outnumbered the victims. The court considered the probation report, along with Dr. Rogers' test results, opinions, and conclusions, and found minor exhibited criminal sophistication as evidenced by the fact he "knew what he was doing, participated willingly, had knowledge of weapons and firearms based on his previous delinquent history and chose to engage in a very risky and dangerous event involving the use of firearms by many individuals."
Turning to the issue of sufficient time for rehabilitation under juvenile jurisdiction, the court acknowledged there would be between five years eight months and seven years eight months to provide minor with rehabilitative services at Pathways To Success. Rejecting the probation officer's determination under this criterion, the court stated, "Although it may be possible for the minor to be rehabilitated during the time period that the juvenile [court] could maintain jurisdiction, it is highly improbable and unlikely that the minor would come close to being rehabilitated. [His] attitude, prior performance on wardship, and denial of involvement in the current offense (as stated to the doctor . . .) make rehabilitation extremely unlikely." Also, minor "allegedly committed a crime within days of being placed on wardship by the Court. [He] showed no progress whatsoever while as a ward of the Court. His conduct in juvenile hall has also shown disrespect and disobedience for law and authority."
Regarding delinquent history, the court found minor has a prior documented, formal delinquent history which includes a first referral to probation on December 21, 2021, a prior sustained petition and order of wardship, use of illegal drugs, family's failure to follow up on services offered, little to no progress on wardship, deception of his parents on a regular basis, abysmal efforts in school (accumulating 14 credits as an 11th grader), and deficient parental involvement or direction. Recognizing that it may give weight to the adequacy of services previously provided to address minor's needs, the court remarked minor has been offered rehabilitative services but to "no avail"; his negative behavior has continued and becomes more severe. At juvenile hall, his behavior continued to show disrespect for the law and a lack of desire for successful change.
As to the fifth criterion, the court examined the circumstances and gravity of minor's current charged offenses and found them to be egregious in nature because there were multiple suspects, multiple firearms, and a vulnerable employee situation that put their lives in danger/ The court opined that the behavior by minor and others is alarming in its boldness and seriousness; they clearly planned their actions with the full intent of carrying out their plan by bringing numerous participants and firearms.
In short, the juvenile court concluded minor is not amenable to rehabilitation under its jurisdiction.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Section 707.
We recently outlined the legal framework for motions to transfer juveniles from juvenile courts to courts of criminal jurisdiction in In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152: "Section 707 sets forth the procedures for transferring a minor from juvenile court to criminal court. It provides that whenever a minor aged 16 years or older is alleged to have committed a felony, the prosecutor may move 'to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction.' (§ 707, subd. (a)(1).) The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the minor should be transferred. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(a).)
"The Legislature amended section 707 in 2023 and 2024. Effective January 1, 2023, Assembly Bill [No.] 2361 amended section 707[, subdivision] (a)(3) by adding the following italicized language: 'Following submission and consideration of the report, and of any other relevant evidence that the petitioner or the minor may wish to submit, the juvenile court shall decide whether the minor should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction. In order to find that the minor should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the court shall find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. In making its decision, the court shall consider the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) to (E), inclusive. If the court orders a transfer of jurisdiction, the court shall recite the basis for its decision in an order entered upon the minutes, which shall include the reasons supporting the court's finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.' (§ 707[, subd.] (a)(3), italics added.)
"The five statutory criteria listed in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of section 707[, subdivision] (a)(3) were not amended by Assembly Bill [No.] 2361. Those criteria are (1) 'the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor' (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(i)), (2) '[w]hether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction' (§ 707[, subd.] (a)(3)(B)(i)), (3) '[t]he minor's previous delinquent history' (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(C)(i)), (4) '[s]uccess of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor' (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(D)(i)), and (5) '[t]he circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor' (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(E)(i)). The statute sets forth a nonexhaustive list of relevant factors for the court to consider with respect to each of the five criteria. (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(ii), (B)(ii), (C)(ii), (D)(ii), (E)(ii).)
"Effective January 1, 2024, Senate Bill [No.] 545 amended section 707 to require that with respect to each of those five criteria the juvenile court 'shall give weight to any relevant factor,' including the specific factors listed as relevant to each criterion. (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(ii), (B)(ii), (C)(ii), (D)(ii), (E)(ii).) The previous version of the statute made consideration of those factors discretionary, not mandatory. (Former § 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(ii), (B)(ii), (C)(ii), (D)(ii), (E)(ii).) With respect to the degree of criminal sophistication, Senate Bill [No.] 545 also added new mandatory factors for the court to consider: whether the minor has had any involvement in the child welfare or foster care system and whether the minor has been 'a victim of human trafficking, sexual abuse, or sexual battery.' (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(ii).)
"We review the juvenile court's ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] 'The abuse of discretion standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court's ruling under review. The trial court's findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.' [Citation.] The juvenile court's findings with respect to each of section 707's five criteria are findings of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. [Citation.] In conducting substantial evidence review, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court's findings. [Citation.]
"Likewise, we review for substantial evidence the juvenile court's ultimate finding 'that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.' [Citation.] Because the juvenile court must make that finding by clear and convincing evidence, we 'determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by' the clear and convincing evidence standard. [Citation.]" (In re Miguel R., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at pp. 164-165.)
B. Analysis.
Initially, minor contends the juvenile court failed to sufficiently articulate its reasons for finding he was not amenable to rehabilitation under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as required by section 707, subdivision (a)(3). Not so. In addition to stating its reasons on the record, the court directed the parties to review its "written Statement of Decision which is nine pages long and contains all of the information the Court relied upon." The court's statement of decision "clearly and explicitly 'articulate[d] its evaluative process' by detailing 'how it weighed the evidence' and by 'identify[ing] the specific facts which persuaded the court'" including an explanation of "how the different statutory criteria affected its transfer decision." (C.S. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1035.)
We therefore consider minor's remaining claim that the court's factual findings are deficient "in light of the failure of any evidence by the prosecution as to why the programs suggested by the probation officer . . . could not rehabilitate him or that it would take more than five to seven years to accomplish that task." This claim focuses on the prosecutor's failure to introduce expert testimony as to why the programs suggested by the probation officer are unable to rehabilitate minor within the time available (five to seven years). Minor cites In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1287-1288, which quoted J.N. v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 706, 722. In both cases, the probation officers opined the minors were not amenable for rehabilitation under juvenile court jurisdiction. However, both appellate courts reversed the orders transferring minors after concluding a proper analysis of this criterion "generally requires 'expert testimony concerning the programs available, the duration of any of the programs, or whether attendance would rehabilitate [the minor] before termination of the juvenile court's jurisdiction.'" (In re S.S., at pp. 1291, 1294; see J.N. v. Superior Court, at pp. 722, 724-725.)
Here, in contrast, the probation officer agreed with the defense expert's opinion that minor can be rehabilitated in the time allotted. He identified the secured facility and listed the available programs. The prosecution's failure to offer expert testimony concerning the same is immaterial. (Jimmy H. v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 709, 714 ["Testimony of expert witnesses may also provide guidance for the court's decision on the fitness of a minor for treatment as a juvenile."].) In rejecting the opinions of the probation officer and Dr. Rogers, the juvenile court noted the minor committed the current offenses "just 21 days after being declared a ward," his criminal conduct escalated in gravity suggesting he "had no intention of complying with the prior court orders, nor did [he] take the court seriously at all," and he disregards both the law and the court's attempts at providing rehabilitative services. Acknowledging the probation officer's opinion, the court found the minor's "potential to grow or mature is extremely speculative based on [his] current mindset and behaviors," which demonstrate a "complete lack of desire to change or work with his probation officer seriously." Substantial evidence supports these findings.
Moreover, as we stated in Miguel R., "[s]ection 707[, subdivision] (a)(3) (as amended by Assem. Bill [No.] 2361) mandates that the juvenile court 'shall consider the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) to (E), inclusive' in determining whether 'the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.' Thus, according to the statute's plain language, the court is required to consider each of the five listed criteria in determining whether the prosecution has carried its burden of proof to transfer a juvenile to criminal court. [Citation.] 'Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction' is the second of the five listed criteria. [Citation.] The statute does not direct the juvenile court to afford any greater weight to that criterion. [Citation.] Rather, the statute expressly requires the court to consider all five criteria in making its determination, but the statute says nothing about the relative weight to be given to any of the criteria. [Citation.] . . . [¶] . . . '[T]he ultimate determination of whether 'the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court' [citation] is not the same as the second criterion .... [¶] [Rather], the ultimate finding that the juvenile court must make under section 707[subdivision] (a)(3) concerns a global assessment of the minor's suitability to rehabilitation within the juvenile court system, and not just a comparison of the time needed with the time remaining. [Citation.]" (Miguel R., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at pp. 166-167.)
Here, the record shows the juvenile court understood the applicable law. The court considered the five criteria required by section 707, subdivision (a)(3), found all five favored transfer, and articulated its reasons in its statement of decision. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding that minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Thus, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the prosecution's motion to transfer.
III. DISPOSITION
The order transferring minor to criminal court is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J., CODRINGTON J.