Opinion
F080190
04-17-2020
In re K.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.A., Defendant and Appellant.
Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. 18CEJ600135-1V2, 18CEJ600135-2V2, 18CEJ600135-3V2)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gregory T. Fain, Judge. Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Eighteen-year-old K.A. was committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) on October 17, 2019, after multiple petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 were found true and less restrictive placements failed. K.A. appealed and appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.
References to code sections are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified. --------
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
A section 602 petition was filed against K.A. in Los Angeles County for violating Penal Code section 213, subdivision (b), attempted robbery. He was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court, placed on probation on September 27, 2016, and released to his mother's custody. A review hearing was set for January 6, 2017. When K.A. failed to appear at the review hearing, a bench warrant was issued.
At some point, K.A. began living in Fresno with his sister. A section 602 petition was filed in Fresno County alleging a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), vehicle theft, on March 21, 2018. On May 22, 2018, the allegations were found true.
Another section 602 petition was filed in Fresno County alleging that K.A. committed a violation of Penal Code section 211, robbery, with the allegation use of a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). The allegations were found true and on July 17, 2019, K.A. was committed for 365 days to the Juvenile Justice Campus (JJC), with the proviso he be transferred to the county jail when he turned 19 years old.
On September 9, 2019, a section 777 petition for modification was filed alleging K.A. had failed to obey the rules at the JJC, failed to obey staff, and was fighting with other minors. Probation requested a more restrictive placement.
K.A. admitted on September 17, 2019, to fighting with minors while in the JJC and refusing to obey staff and rules at the JJC. At this time, the juvenile court advised K.A. that the maximum period of confinement on all prior petitions was seven years four months, and that he faced a possible disposition to the DJJ.
The disposition hearing was held on October 17, 2019. Probation recommended a commitment to the DJJ. Probation was concerned about the younger juveniles at the JJC because K.A., now 18 years old, was assaulting and fighting 15-year-old minors in custody. Probation recommended a commitment to the DJJ because it kept K.A. in the juvenile justice system where the most rehabilitative services would be available. The People requested the juvenile court follow probation's recommendation.
K.A. filed a statement in mitigation on October 16, 2019, which the juvenile court reviewed. However, the juvenile court found that the DJJ was the appropriate placement for K.A. and that there was substantial evidence K.A. would benefit from a placement at the DJJ. The juvenile court found that while in the custody of the DJJ, K.A. would be able to obtain his high school diploma, receive mental health services, and be able to participate in cognitive behavioral intervention for substance abuse. K.A. also would be able to participate in the Aggression Interruption Training program and the "CounterPoint" program, both of which are designed to address aggressive behavior.
In addressing the various less restrictive placements and services that had been provided, the juvenile court noted K.A. had been on probation, home release, had received anger management counseling and was ordered to perform community service. He absconded from his placement and was absent for months. K.A. was given local treatment programs and local detention in Fresno at the JJC. Because of his age and his assaultive behavior toward younger juveniles at the JJC, the juvenile court found continued placement at the JJC posed a risk to others in custody and was not appropriate.
The juvenile court concluded that less restrictive placements had been tried and were inappropriate dispositions and K.A. would benefit from placement at the DJJ. K.A. was adjudged a ward of the court and committed to the DJJ, for a maximum period of confinement of seven years four months.
K.A. filed a timely notice of appeal on October 24, 2019.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 436 on February 10, 2020. This court issued its letter inviting K.A. to submit supplemental briefing that same day. No supplemental brief was received from K.A.
We review a juvenile court's commitment order for abuse of discretion. (In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396.) The record reflects that at least three section 602 petitions were sustained against K.A. and that less restrictive placements, combined with services, were tried and failed to effect a change in K.A.'s behavior. Furthermore, there is no absolute rule that a commitment to the DJJ be a last resort, after less restrictive placements have been tried. (In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 5-6.) Having reviewed the record, we find substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's disposition order. (In re N.C. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 81, 86.)
After reviewing the record, we find no arguable factual or legal issues are presented.
DISPOSITION
The disposition order is affirmed.