Opinion
C082253
05-10-2017
In re J. Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J. Z., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JV132556)
Minor J. Z. appeals from the juvenile court's order committing him to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF). He first contends the court abused its discretion in that a less restrictive alternative was available and appropriate. He also contends the commitment order must be amended to reflect the court's oral pronouncement. The People concede the second contention. We agree. We will order a corrected commitment order and otherwise affirm.
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 2011, when the minor was 14, minor and another youth used a pry bar to break into three elementary school classrooms and stole candy and other small items. Minor admitted one count of misdemeanor burglary and a second count was dismissed. He was placed on one year's probation.
Six months later, the juvenile court revoked minor's probation, finding minor had not completed his required counseling. The violation was dismissed, and probation was reinstated, with minor committed to his parents' custody.
A year later, the wardship was terminated following minor's successful completion of probation.
On May 15, 2014, minor got into an argument with the mother of his two-month-old baby. He broke a picture frame and took the mother's cell phone and smashed it. With both hands, he grabbed the mother's hair and pulled her to the bed, while she held their baby. When the mother's father tried to intervene, minor pushed him onto the bed and began punching him. Minor also shut off the circuit breaker box to the house, so police could not be called.
Minor admitted felony counts of infliction of corporal injury on the mother of his child, child endangerment, removing a telephone line and misdemeanor battery. He also admitted to two counts of misdemeanor vandalism. The felony counts were reduced to misdemeanors. He was committed to juvenile hall for 60 days, with credit for 42 days, and ordered to complete 30 days on electronic monitoring.
On August 19, 2014, minor violated a no-contact order by going to the mother's home, banging on the door, and repeatedly calling the mother's cell phone. Minor admitted a count of misdemeanor stalking. He was committed to 17 days in juvenile hall, with credit for 17 days served. He was order to complete 45 days on electronic monitoring and released to his mother's custody. While minor was housed in juvenile hall, prior to his plea, he was classified as a Norteño gang member.
On September 26, 2014, minor and two others assaulted a youth, who was a friend of the mother of minor's child. As the victim was leaving the mother's home, he was hit from behind. The victim turned around and minor hit him again. One of the attackers knocked the victim to the ground, and minor and the others kicked and stomped the victim.
Minor admitted felony counts of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury and robbery. For both counts he admitted causing great bodily injury. The court committed minor to "Level B" placement at Glen Mills School in Pennsylvania.
While minor was housed in juvenile hall, prior to his plea, he was again classified as a Norteño. He was also subject to three incident reports: slapping another resident during horseplay, gang agitation, and a mutual fight.
Minor arrived at Glen Mills School on March 26, 2015. By his six-month review, his progress and behavior had fluctuated between marginal and fair. He had six incidents, including trying to punch a student in the face, smoking synthetic marijuana, disrespecting staff, attempting to tattoo himself, and fighting a peer. But by November, he had significantly improved and earned a pass to return home over Thanksgiving break.
Minor failed to catch his return flight. Probation told minor's father minor had until the next day to contact probation or catch a return flight. That night, minor told his father he was not going back to the program. Minor's placement at Glen Mills was terminated.
On December 26, 2015, minor was arrested for vehicle theft. He pled no contest to vehicle theft and the court granted three years' informal probation with 45 days in county jail as a condition thereof.
On April 28, 2016, minor admitted a probation violation for failing to return to Glen Mills. Probation noted minor was interested in participating in extended foster care services/transition housing program, plus foster care, "AB 12." But his incarceration prevented his eligibility for the program. Probation recommended that minor be released to his own care and custody after completing his 45-day jail sentence.
Minor's counsel argued for allowing minor to participate in AB 12 extended foster care. Counsel noted AB 12 is a "pretty structured and monitored program," which would give him a chance to "get on his feet."
The court explained that the question was whether minor's partial completion of Glen Mills was enough to provide him the tools to be released into the community. To that, the "best evidence" is minor's conduct while on home pass. Finding no other sufficient less restrictive means to provide the needed rehabilitation, the court committed minor to the DJF. It explained: "I believe that you can be rehabilitated, and that the programming there will help you finish those goals and transition into adulthood while avoiding a future state prison sentence or main jail."
DISCUSSION
I
The Trial Court Acted Within Its Discretion In Committing Minor To DJF
On appeal, minor first contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to DJF because a less restrictive alternative was available and appropriate. He argues incarceration denied him the opportunity to participate in the AB 12 program. He also argues a DJF commitment is not in his best interest as it precluded him from reunification services with his daughter. We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in committing minor to DJF.
"We review a juvenile court's commitment decision for abuse of discretion, indulging all reasonable inferences to support its decision." (In re Antoine D. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1320.) But the evidence must demonstrate probable benefit to the minor from commitment "and that less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate." (In re George M. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 376, 379.)
Here, the commitment order was within the juvenile court's discretion. Minor had a lengthy history of offenses and numerous failed attempts at rehabilitation.
In committing minor, the trial court found "no other sufficient less restrictive means to provide the rehabilitative efforts this minor needs . . . ." Indeed, when minor was granted a home pass from Glen Mills, he refused to return to the program. Minor's conduct demonstrated the need for structured rehabilitation and the inadequacy of releasing him to his own care. Accordingly, the DJF commitment was not an abuse of discretion. (See In re M.S. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1250 [DJF commitment "is not an abuse of discretion where the evidence demonstrates a probable benefit to the minor from the commitment and less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate"].)
II
The Commitment Order Must Be Amended To Reflect The
Juvenile Court's Oral Pronouncement
Minor next contends the commitment order must be amended to reflect the court's oral pronouncement. The People concede error, and we agree.
At the disposition hearing, after minor noted his accomplishments at Glen Mills, the trial court said: "I am hopeful that [DJF] will take into consideration, and the Court will make sure the comment section in its [DJF] commitment, takes into consideration the amount of work that [minor] did do in Level B placement, with the hope that will affect the treatment plan and decrease the number of months that [minor] needs to do within that treatment program."
Minor had told the court he had achieved "bull status" at Glen Mills, by modeling positive behavior and being a program role model. He completed multiple counseling groups, including anger management, life skills, victim awareness, family values, drug and alcohol, and gun violence. He was within 30 credits of earning his high school diploma. He took residential carpentry classes and believed his skills sufficient to gain employment in that field. He was approved for AB 12 independent living. Those accomplishments were not included in the commitment order.
We will direct the juvenile court to prepare an amended commitment order reflecting the juvenile court's oral pronouncement that the comment sections reflect minor's work at Glen Mills.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court is directed to prepare an amended commitment order reflecting the juvenile court's oral pronouncement. As amended, the orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
/s/_________
Robie, J. We concur: /s/_________
Nicholson, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Duarte, J.