Opinion
D075994
02-10-2020
In re J.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.J., Defendant and Appellant.
Sheila O'Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Joy Utomi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JJL000226) APPEAL from a dispositional order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D. Lehman, Judge. Affirmed. Sheila O'Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Joy Utomi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
J.J. (the Minor) admitted he committed an assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)). The remaining charge was dismissed, and the parties agreed a separate robbery offense would not be charged.
Following a dispositional hearing, the court adopted the recommendations of the probation officer and committed the Minor to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a period of four years with 358 days of custody credits.
The minor appeals contending the court abused its discretion in selecting DJJ as his placement because the court did not adequately consider less restrictive alternatives for placement. We will reject the Minor's contentions as the record demonstrates the juvenile court carefully considered the benefits of the DJJ placement of the Minor and was aware of and considered other alternative placements when making the final dispositional order. We will affirm the order.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The fact statement in the probation officer's fitness report shows that the Minor was at a party at 2:00 a.m. He was carrying a pistol in his sweatshirt. He fired four shots and struck the victim in the leg and hip causing serious, permanent injury.
The Minor acknowledges the trial court did review the scope and nature of the benefits that a DJJ commitment would provide to him. He contends, however, the court did not adequately review less restrictive alternatives and therefore abused its discretion in selecting DJJ as the commitment. The alternatives to DJJ commitment were set forth in the probation recommendation and were considered by the juvenile court judge.
The trial court found the Minor in "dire need" of structure that could not be provided in this case by less restrictive placements. The court explained:
"[I]f we simply send him to placement, he'll lack that kind of structure because he'll be free to just walk out the door, unfortunately. If we grant probation, I'm not sure where he would go. Perhaps he could go home to the mother, but he wasn't willing to stay at any one place before this happened. . . . [¶] . . . . And so he went from one place to another because of a lack of structure. So I'm afraid the only alternative is the kind of structure that the Department of Juvenile Justice would provide for him. I think the probation officer's report is right in making that recommendation. And that's why the court is going to follow the recommendation. The court does believe that the minor would benefit from the structure and programs available at the Department of Juvenile Justice."
A. Legal Principles
Juvenile court commitment orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329-1330.) Where the court's decision is based on its assessment of factual materials, we review the factual foundation under the substantial evidence standard of review. (In re A.M. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449.)
When a court considers a placement such as the one in this case the court must 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." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725.5.) We will uphold a DJJ commitment where there is "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; § 734.)
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified. --------
It is not absolutely necessary that less restrictive placements be tried and demonstrated as ineffective in order to find the more restrictive placement to be appropriate. (In re Teofilio (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 571, 577.)
B. Analysis
At the time of the offense, the 17-year-old Minor was carrying a pistol because he said his life had been threatened by a gang. Although he denied being a member of a gang, the Minor said he "ran with the Bloods" while in Los Angeles County where his father lived.
The Minor did not have a fixed residence as he travelled to his parents' homes or his sister's home, as he saw fit.
At the disposition hearing, the court had before it an extensive analysis of the Minor's needs. All agreed that structure and stability were foremost in his needs. There was no realistic hope his family could provide the needed structure. The group home that was considered declined to accept the Minor. No other viable alternatives were available to the court in addressing this minor's needs.
As we have noted before, the DJJ commitment provided important benefits and treatment for this troubled youth. The Minor does not challenge the benefits, albeit in a difficult environment, that he can derive from the placement selected by the court. It was not necessary to try different programs to see if they failed. It was enough that the court carefully considered lesser alternatives but reasonably concluded they would not meet this minor's needs.
The juvenile court dealt with a young person who had committed a dangerous and violent crime causing serious, permanent injury. The juvenile court could easily conclude that at age 17, the Minor was certainly involved with a criminal street gang to some extent, hence the perceived need to carry a pistol. Yet, he did remarkably well when he was detained in juvenile hall. The structure and stability benefitted him significantly. Although he had dropped out of school while on his own, he did well academically while in custody.
The court could reasonably find this youth was at a crossroad in his life. Without significant intervention, he was on track to find himself in the adult criminal system. Although DJJ is a restrictive placement, the court, on this record, could reasonably conclude it was the only appropriate placement for him. There was no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order placing the Minor in the Division of Juvenile Justice is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J. GUERRERO, J.