Opinion
H050518
12-19-2023
In re R.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. R.R., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 21-JV-45161BCD)
Grover, J.
R.R. appeals from a dispositional order committing him to the Santa Clara County Secure Youth Treatment Facility. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. We notified R.R. of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, and he has not done so.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue on appeal. Following the California Supreme Court's direction in Kelly, we provide a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the counts that were admitted and sustained, and the disposition imposed. (Id. at p. 110.)
I. WENDE/KELLY REVIEW
The juvenile court sustained a petition charging R.R. with committing acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute two counts of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 212.5, subd. (c), 664) and one count of carrying a loaded firearm in public (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a); unspecified statutory references are to this code). R.R. was adjudged a ward of the court and committed to a juvenile rehabilitation facility in April 2021. He was released to an aftercare program in November 2021, but absconded from supervision and was failed from the program in January 2022. He was then alleged to have violated numerous conditions of probation. The following month, R.R. was charged in a new petition with committing acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute two counts of second degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)), one count of carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)), and one count of reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). A further petition in June 2022 charged him with committing acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute seven counts of robbery (§ 211), three counts of carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)), one count of assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and one count of attempted robbery (§§ 211, 664). The acts alleged in both petitions all took place between February 12 and 14, 2022.
R.R. admitted the probation violations and admitted two counts of robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and one count of reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). At a contested dispositional hearing in October 2022, a reentry services provider testified that she had worked with R.R. since he arrived at juvenile hall in February 2022. While in custody, R.R. met with her twice each week. He completed high school and developed a life plan. She described various benefits and programs that would be available to R.R. following the disposition of his case, and expressed her belief that participants in certain programs often benefited from placement in a less restrictive environment.
The probation officer testified that she had met with R.R. three or four times and spoken to him about his family. R.R.'s father and grandfather were gang members, and R.R. professed membership in the same gang. The probation officer believed R.R.'s assertion to be true based on her conversations with other minors who knew him. While in juvenile hall, R.R. had been involved in several fights. Based on factors including R.R.'s gang involvement, his apparent use of a gun in a dangerous crime spree, and the failure of other approaches to reform his behavior, the probation officer recommended that R.R. be placed in "Secure Track." According to the probation officer, Secure Track offerings included a gang intervention program, a trade certification program, and enrichment programs such as music and creative writing.
R.R.'s counsel argued for "a disposition other than Secure Track" while the prosecutor argued in favor of a Secure Track commitment. The juvenile court weighed community safety, the importance of redressing injuries to the victims, and the best interests of R.R. (See Welf. &Inst. Code, § 202, subd. (d).) It noted that R.R. was now 18 years old, and expressed hope that Secure Track would provide the "intensive intervention" needed to prevent him from encountering more severe consequences once released. After determining in its discretion that Secure Track was "unquestionably" the best option, the juvenile court committed R.R. to the Santa Clara County Secure Youth Treatment Facility for a baseline term of 18 months with credits of 476 days. The court identified the maximum term of confinement as six years eight months.
We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue.
II. DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Greenwood, P. J. Lie, J.