Opinion
C098977
03-04-2024
In re M.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. M.B., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Super. Ct. No. JV140669)
BOULWARE EURIE, J.
Appointed counsel for minor M.B. asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to M.B., we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On March 5, 2020, when he was 15 years old, M.B. threatened a woman with a screwdriver and raped her. The Sacramento County District Attorney's Office filed a petition on March 10, 2020, alleging M.B. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he committed four criminal offenses. (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 602.) On October 2, 2020, M.B. admitted committing forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and admitted using a deadly weapon in committing the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)). On May 14, 2021, the juvenile court adjudged M.B. a ward of the court and committed him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice. (§ 725, subd. (b); former § 731, as amended by Stats. 2020, ch. 337, § 28.) On September 8, 2021, the court ordered M.B. to pay $6,564.39 in restitution to the victim and $645.42 to the restitution fund. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f).)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Beginning with Senate Bill No. 823 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), the Legislature began the process of closing the Division of Juvenile Justice. (Stats. 2020, ch. 337; see also Stats. 2021, ch. 18; Stats. 2022, ch. 58, §§ 2-3.) Consequently, on December 12, 2022, the Sacramento County Chief Probation Officer filed a petition pursuant to section 731.1, seeking to recall M.B.'s commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice and convene a recall disposition hearing. The juvenile court granted the petition, recalled M.B.'s commitment, and scheduled a recall disposition hearing.
At the recall disposition hearing, the district attorney argued the juvenile court should follow the probation officer's recommendation and commit M.B. to the Valley Oak Youth Academy at the Sacramento County Youth Detention Facility. M.B. argued that further custody would be counterproductive and asked the juvenile court to release him to probation with conditions allowing for continued community based rehabilitation.
The juvenile court considered the factors in section 875, subdivision (a)(3) to determine whether a less restrictive disposition than the secure youth treatment facility was suitable for M.B. The court found that the severity of the offense weighed in favor of commitment to the secure youth treatment facility. The court found M.B.'s previous delinquent history, a single citation for a curfew violation, weighed in favor of a less restrictive disposition. The court also found that M.B.'s plan for programming, treatment, and education in the community was more detailed than the plan for services provided in the secure youth treatment facility and that the quality of the community based services seemed at least equal to the treatment facility services, so this factor also weighed in favor of a less restrictive disposition. Considering community safety, the court relied on a doctor's assessment that M.B. was in the sixth percentile for risk of reoffending, which it found weighed in favor of a less restrictive disposition. Finally, the court found M.B.'s maturation while committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice, as demonstrated by completion of treatment programs, also weighed in favor of a less restrictive disposition.
Accordingly, the juvenile court determined M.B. should be placed on probation, but ordered he be kept in custody for four weeks to give the probation officer, the district attorney's office, and M.B.'s counsel time to meet and determine what conditions would be appropriate. At the follow-up hearing, the court ordered M.B., among other things, to have no contact with the victim; to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290 et seq.; to enroll in and successfully complete community based intervention services to address his areas of need, as approved by the probation officer; and to pay the remaining balance of the previously ordered restitution.
M.B. objected to the requirement that he register as a sex offender, contending the statute requiring his registration violates the equal protection provisions of the United States and California because the registration requirement applied to him but would not apply to juveniles who committed the same offense after the closure of the Division of Juvenile Justice. (See Pen. Code, § 290.008.) The district attorney contended Penal Code section 290.008 was not unconstitutional. The juvenile court imposed the registration requirement over M.B.'s objections. M.B. timely appealed from the dispositional order.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) M.B. was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from M.B.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to M.B.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MAURO, Acting P. J., MESIWALA, J.