Opinion
No. A148933
03-02-2017
In re TRENTON M., a Person coming under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRENTON M., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J16-00326)
Minor Trenton M. appeals from the juvenile court's disposition findings and order, issued in a wardship proceeding initiated pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, placing him in Contra Costa County's Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (Orin Allen) for six months. Trenton contends the court was required under section 727.1, subdivision (a) to place him in the least restrictive placement that was appropriate to his circumstances and, regardless, abused its discretion in placing him in Orin Allen. We conclude section 727.1, subdivision (a) does not apply to his case and that the court did not abuse its discretion. Therefore, we affirm the court's disposition findings and order.
All statutory references in this opinion are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
BACKGROUND
Trenton's case began in March 2016, when the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a wardship petition alleging that he had committed a felony first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)) of Judith Mendonsa in Martinez, California in April 2015. As we will discuss, this was one of three burglaries that the record indicates Trenton participated in on the same day, April 9, 2015; the other two were not charged.
At Trenton's arraignment in April 2016, his mother said that Trenton was not living at home at the time of the alleged burglary the year before. He was not "minding" her, so she "asked him to leave" the house, and he was staying elsewhere. The court ordered Trenton to be at his home or he otherwise would be detained. Trenton's mother also advised the court that Trenton had not attended school since the Easter vacation. When Trenton interjected, "That was last week, ma'am," the court told him to "shape up" because he was charged with a serious crime.
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the prosecution amended the petition to allege Trenton committed the lesser included offense of felony possession of property "stolen from Judith Mendoza [sic], or their home." (Pen. Code, § 496.) Trenton pled no contest to this allegation, and agreed that it could not be reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. The court found Martinez Police Department report number 15-1067 was a factual basis for the plea as stipulated to by the parties and sustained the amended allegation.
I.
The Probation Department's Disposition Report
In June 2016, the probation department submitted a disposition report to the juvenile court in which it summarized the three burglaries in which Trenton had participated on April 9, 2015, when he was sixteen years old.
The department summarized Martinez Police Department report number 15-1067. According to the police, on the afternoon of April 9, 2015, they were dispatched to investigate a possible residential burglary on Likins Court, the burglary that ultimately was the basis for the wardship petition. A witness reported three male juveniles dressed in black were in the backyard of a residence and a fourth was sitting in the driver's seat of a black vehicle parked near the residence. Responding officers stopped a vehicle occupied by four male juveniles that matched the description they had received. The police detained all four on suspicion of participating in the reported burglary. Trenton was one of the passengers.
As the dispatched police officers conducted their investigation, they received a report that another burglary had occurred on Duncan Drive, during which certain items had been taken. These included a gold colored ring with a rose inscribed in the metal. An officer observed the ring in plain view on the driver's seat of the stopped vehicle and photographed it; the burglary victim at Duncan Drive positively identified the ring from the photograph.
Also, as the dispatched police officers conducted their investigation, the Likins Court resident, Judith Mendonsa, arrived home. The officers showed her where screens had been removed from her windows. Mendonsa checked her home and did not find anything missing.
All four juveniles were arrested and searched. Each possessed a pair of black socks. There were no fingerprints found at the Likins Court residence, although there were smudge marks on a window.
The four were transported to the police department. All but Trenton admitted to participating in at least one of the burglaries and implicated the others before being cited and released to their parents.
One of the juveniles, Lennie D., said he returned to Martinez from Oakland on the day of the burglaries and met the other three juveniles, who put stolen items into his vehicle. They all agreed to go to the Forrest Hills neighborhood "to hit a lick," which the department indicated was street terminology for robbing, stealing or burglarizing. Once in the neighborhood, Trenton told Lennie D. to pull over. The other three got out while Lennie D. stayed in the vehicle. Lennie D. had a friend named Josh who lived in the area, but the juveniles knew the friend's house was not the Likins Court residence they intended to burglarize.
Another of the juveniles, John D., at first asserted Josh lived at the Likins Court residence. However, he soon changed his account and said he, Trenton and another of the juveniles, Julian D., had committed two burglaries earlier in the day, before meeting Lennie D. and telling him about the burglaries. Lennie D. said, "Let's go hit some lick bro." Trenton suggested the Forrest Hills neighborhood. Also, it had been Trenton's idea to commit the burglaries.
A third juvenile, Julian D., said they stole items in the first two burglaries, including a number of coins, which they hid near a trail. He took the officers to the location of the stolen items, which were returned to the owners.
Trenton also gave a statement. He said the group thought the Likins Court residence was the home of a friend named Josh. When no one answered the door, they went into the backyard to look into the house and see if Josh was there. Lennie D. stayed in the car because he did not plan to stay. They did not try to break into the house.
A probation officer interviewed Trenton and his mother in June 2016. Trenton stated that "he was not present for the burglaries, and denied anything that involved burglaries." He said he was at Likins Court to go to Josh's house for the first time, but went to the wrong house. He had black socks with him because he always kept a change of clothes in Lennie D.'s car. He had no idea why his friends involved him in their situation, or why they would admit to burglaries. Asked if he was remorseful, Trenton said he could not apologize for something he did not do, but that he felt badly for the victims and was glad their belongings were recovered.
The department reported this was Trenton's first offense. Trenton lived in Martinez with his mother, two siblings and a grandmother. Trenton's mother separated from his father in 2011 and later divorced. Trenton wanted to be a music producer. He reported having good relationships with members of his household and an improved relationship with his mother. He attended eleventh grade via an independent studies program through a local school. His grades ranged from C's and B's to one A. He had completed less than half the credits he needed to graduate, had unexcused absences totaling 25 days and had three referrals, two being for attendance and one being for "defiance."
Mother reported that she had placed Trenton on restriction, removed his bedroom door and begun searching his room. She was "still trying to figure out what [was] wrong with her son," but noticed he had " 'straightened up' " since beginning the court process. While they had previously argued about his attending summer school, he was now volunteering to enroll in summer school and planned to attend evening adult school to try to earn his high school diploma.
Mother said Trenton's father was homeless, a drug user, and not involved in Trenton's life. Trenton was a social person who earned good grades, helped out at home and played sports growing up. At the end of ninth grade, he had issues with a football coach and his father, and started to change. In tenth grade, he was attacked by a drunken stranger and seemed traumatized by it. He was also assaulted by his father and later retaliated, resulting in his father's hospitalization.
Mother also said that four years before, she experienced a great deal of pain from bulging disks in her neck and a back injury, for which she took medication that caused her to always be " 'out of it' " and prevented her from parenting appropriately. Eventually, she "had to ask her doctor to get off the medication." She was on a leave of absence from her employment as a clerical supervisor in a county agency.
The department reported that Trenton continued to engage in problematic behavior. As a result of a prior referral, he was referred in March 2015 to Multisystemic Therapy (MST). He had completed the MST program, which addressed substance abuse, behavioral and emotional issues, but "the program did not appear to be effective." Trenton said he continued to smoke marijuana despite the case, having done so every other day for the past six months. The department had conducted an evidence-based assessment of Trenton and classified him as having a moderate risk of re-offense.
The department recommended that Trenton be placed at Orin Allen for a six-month regular program, for which a department manager had found him appropriate. The department noted the burglaries were "thought out and planned as [the juveniles] had the black socks, to wear on their hands," to prevent leaving fingerprints. Trenton, having denied participation, took "no responsibility" for them . . . and "mainly seems to feel sorry for himself for going through the court process." He also was "severely behind" in school credits. "Therefore," the department recommended, "a six month commitment to [Orin Allen] will benefit [Trenton]. Intervention in a structured setting is imperative at this point to introduce him to appropriate expectations of being a law abiding citizen and consequences, if he fails to abide by basic laws, as well as a sense of protecting, rather than victimizing one's community and neighborhood." Further, "he will benefit from structure and supervision the facility offers, beginning with attending school to work towards a high school diploma or GED. Additional programming and treatment classes will be provided to address his anti-social life choices and to learn to tell the truth. [Trenton] will also attend counseling to address the stressors and trauma he has suffered by his father."
In July 2016, on the day scheduled for the disposition hearing, Trenton's counsel requested the scheduling of a contested disposition hearing. The juvenile court granted it, but also learned that day that, contrary to its previous understanding, Trenton was not on formal home supervision. It ordered that Trenton be tested immediately for drugs. Trenton tested positive for THC. The court ordered him detained in juvenile hall until the next hearing.
II.
The Disposition Hearing
The contested dispositional hearing was held in July 2016. The court began the hearing by stating that it had "received, read and considered for purposes of today, probation's report as well as their recommendation."
Trenton's mother testified that Trenton had improved "a lot" since his arrest. He was staying home at night, interacting well with her and his siblings and participating in an independent study program by meeting with a teacher once a week. She was concerned that if he were placed at Orin Allen, he would be in contact with the same delinquent youth "that he'd be[en] hanging around." She was "shocked" that he had tested positive for drugs, but knew he had used drugs one other time while on home release since his arrest. She said Trenton's father had initiated their fight and that Trenton had only defended himself.
Trenton's counsel argued that Trenton should be placed on home probation because this was his first petition, he had made significant improvement in his conduct and he had entered intensive counseling. Counsel said Trenton's independent study curriculum was accelerated so that he could rapidly gain credits toward a diploma. The concerns expressed by the probation department about the lack of structure in the curriculum could be rectified by adding community service hours. Trenton could be ordered to attend a regular full-time high school, wear an ankle monitor, submit to regular drug testing, and participate in family counseling, in which he and his mother had already participated for six months.
The prosecutor agreed with the probation department's recommendation of a ranch commitment because Trenton's burglary offense was a serious offense and well-planned, and he continued to deny his role in it. The prosecutor argued Trenton "has a serious lack of structure in his life," was way behind in his credits to graduate, and had engaged in frequent drug use.
The probation department "share[d] the same concerns as the D.A.," such as regarding Trenton's lack of structure, failure to take responsibility for the offense, ongoing drug use, and the number of credits he still needed in order to graduate high school. The probation officer noted that Trenton could be allowed to leave the ranch in four months and then resume independent study.
III.
The Court's Disposition Ruling
The juvenile court adjudged Trenton a ward of the court and placed him in the regular six-month program at Orin Allen. The court stated:
"That's the goal of these proceedings, to meet Trenton's needs, and he has many, so that, Trenton, you are successful in life, period. . . . [I]t's the needs of the young person that drives the issues. But you have to balance and keep in mind victims in the community, safety, risk, that sort of thing." [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [¶] I share many concerns that were voiced both in the probation report and by [the prosecutor] as it relates to Trenton. Trenton has yet to really step up and accept responsibility for what leads him before the Court. These are very serious burglaries. They were well planned, well thought-out burglaries. Very risky business. This is not just a little property offense. And young people think of burglaries as property offenses. They're not. When you go into someone's home you are really risking not only your own life but the lives of all those people around you, including people in the home. You don't know if someone in that home doesn't have a gun. You don't know if some person you're committing this burglary with has a gun or a knife and reacts in the impulse and heat of the situation and hurts somebody. . . . [¶] These are crimes of violence. . . . And this was not just one burglary, this was more than one burglary. And these were well planned, well thought out. So I have a lot of concerns.
"And Trenton, in the midst of coming to court, then comes to court and tests positive for THC. So I'm not sure really quite frankly how seriously Trenton has been taking this process because he continued to use substances, which I'm sure played a huge role in the decision to burglarize and get items to sell quickly to get cash to buy drugs, period.
"So I believe probation's recommendation in this case is absolutely appropriate. And I intend to follow it. And I also agree that independent study would be wholly inappropriate for someone like Trenton. Trenton needs to go to a full-time school every day, day in, day out for structure in his life and show that he can succeed in that environment.
"So I hereby adjudge Trenton a ward of the Court with no termination date. I do find that his welfare requires that custody be removed from his custodial parent, who is his mother at the moment. . . . Trenton is hereby committed to the Ranch for a 6-month regular program . . . ."
Trenton filed timely notice of appeal from the court's findings and disposition order.
DISCUSSION
Trenton makes two arguments, one that is unsupported by law and another that is unpersuasive.
I.
Section 727.1 , Subdivision (a) Does Not Apply to Trenton's Case.
Trenton argues that the juvenile court violated the mandates contained in section 727.l, subdivision (a) regarding juvenile placement. He is incorrect. Section 727.1, subdivision (a) does not apply to his case.
Section 727.1, subdivision (a) states: "If the court orders the care, custody, and control of the minor to be under the supervision of the probation officer for foster care placement pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 727, the decision regarding choice of placement, pursuant to Section 706.6, shall be based upon selection of a safe setting that is the least restrictive or most family like, and the most appropriate setting that meets the individual needs of the minor and is available, in proximity to the parent's home, consistent with the selection of the environment best suited to meet the minor's special needs and best interests. The selection shall consider, in order of priority, placement with relatives, tribal members, and foster family, group care, and residential treatment pursuant to Section 7950 of the Family Code."
In determining the scope of section 727.1, we bear in mind that "[t]he Legislature's chosen language is the most reliable indicator of its intent because ' "it is the language of the statute itself that has successfully braved the legislative gauntlet." ' [Citations.] We give the words of the statute 'a plain and commonsense meaning' unless the statute specifically defines the words to give them a special meaning. [Citations.] If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, our task is at an end, for there is no need for judicial construction." (MacIsaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1082-1083.)
As the People point out, the first phrase of this provision makes clear that its application is limited to those minors who are ordered to foster care placement pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 727. Trenton was placed in Contra Costa County's Orin Allen facility, not foster care. Therefore, section 727.1, subdivision (a) by its plain terms does not apply to circumstances of this case, and did not require the juvenile court to consider less restrictive placements as mandated by it.
Section 727 provides for the general care and custody of a minor adjudged to be a ward of the court, and only some of its multiple directives and instructions relate to foster care placement and services. (E.g., § 727, subd. (a)(4)(B).)
Nonetheless, Trenton contends that section 727.1, subdivision (a) is not limited to foster care placements. He provides only one case authority for this contention, In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, and neglects to discuss the significance of the case at all. We need not discuss it much either because, as the Nicole H. court stated, "[t]he group home placement at issue . . . is a foster care placement." (Id. at p. 1156, fn. 5, italics added.) Therefore, Nicole H. supports, rather than contradicts, our conclusion that section 727.1, subdivision (a) applies only to foster care placements. Trenton's argument lacks merit.
The parties also refer to the provision regarding out-of-state placements in section 727.1. This provision is section 727.1, subdivision (b), and Trenton does not rely on it in making his argument.
II.
The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion
Trenton also argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in placing him at Orin Allen because a less restrictive placement would have been appropriate. His argument asks us to reweigh the evidence rather than evaluate whether sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's ruling. The juvenile court acted within its discretion in placing him at Orin Allen.
Since 1984, section 202 has required that delinquent minors, "in conformity with the interests of public safety and protection, receive care, treatment, and guidance that is consistent with their best interest, that holds them accountable for their behavior, and that is appropriate for their circumstances. This guidance may include punishment that is consistent with the rehabilitative objectives" of Chapter 2 of the Juvenile Court Law, which punishment may include as a sanction commitment of the minor "to a local detention or treatment facility, such as a juvenile hall, camp, or ranch." (§ 202, subds. (b), (e)(4); see In re Lorenza M. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 49, 57-58.) Despite this "slight shift in emphasis, rehabilitation continues to be an important objective of the juvenile court law." (In re Teofilio A. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 571, 576.)
That said, "[t]he juvenile court has broad discretion at disposition to implement the priorities in section 202." (John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 186.) "[J]uvenile placements need not follow any particular order under section 602 and section 777, including from the least to the most restrictive. [Citations.] Nor does the court necessarily abuse its discretion by ordering the most restrictive placement before other options have been tried." (In re Eddie M. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 480, 507.)
A placement in a facility such as Orin Allen "may be made in the first instance, without previous resort to less restrictive placements." (In re Asean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 473.) "[L]ess restrictive placements do not actually have to have been tried. . . . [I]f there is evidence in the record to show a consideration of less restrictive placements was before the court, the fact that the judge does not state on the record his consideration of those alternatives and reasons for rejecting them will not result in a reversal." (In re Teofilio A., supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 577.) "[H]owever, there must be some evidence to support the judge's implied determination that he [or she] sub silentio considered and rejected reasonable alternative dispositions." (Ibid.)
"A juvenile court's commitment order may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing the court abused its discretion." (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329-1330.) We will not lightly substitute our judgment for that of the juvenile court. Rather, we must indulge all reasonable inferences in favor of the decision and affirm the decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 1330.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is " 'reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the requisite finding under the governing standard of proof.' " (In re Jorge G. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 931, 942.)
There is no question that the juvenile court considered less restrictive alternatives before ordering Trenton placed in Orin Allen, if only because his own counsel argued for them during the hearing.
Trenton argues the juvenile court did not consider that this was his first offense, in violation of section 725.5. This is easily disproved. The court indicated at the beginning of the disposition hearing that it had considered the department's disposition report, which states this was Trenton's "first delinquent offense."
Section 725.5 states, "In determining the judgment and order to be made in any case in which the minor is found to be a person described in Section 602, the court shall consider, in addition to other relevant and material evidence, (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." --------
Further, the court's placement ruling was supported by substantial evidence that it was appropriate for Trenton's rehabilitation in conformity with the interests in public safety and protection. At the beginning of the disposition hearing, the court indicated that it had considered the probation department's disposition report and recommendations. The department's report of Trenton's misconduct was based on its summary of Martinez Police Department report 15-1067. Trenton does not dispute the facts in this report; he would be hard pressed to do so because his counsel stipulated that it served as a factual basis for his no contest plea at the jurisdiction hearing.
This police report summarizes the admissions of Trenton's three associates, arrested with him during a police stop of the car they were in together near the Likins Court residence, that Trenton had committed three residential burglaries that day that were planned to avoid detection via the use of black socks; one of these associates stated it was Trenton's idea to commit the burglaries to begin with, and another, the driver of the car, indicated it was Trenton's idea to pull over on Likins Court, suggesting he picked out the residence there that they burglarized. Despite this ample evidence that Trenton had committed three burglaries in one day, each a serious crime in which violence and tragedy could have occurred, Trenton denied that he had done so and offered no explanation other than the discredited story that the group was looking for the home of a friend named Josh. And Trenton had no explanation for the stolen items found in the car or later recovered.
There were other signs that Trenton continued to engage in problematic behaviors a year after the burglaries and beyond. At his arraignment in April 2016—a year after the burglaries—his mother indicated that he was missing school. The department reported that although he was in 11th grade, he had less than half of the credits he needed to graduate; it also reported that his academic history showed 25 days of unexcused absences and three referrals. In its June 2016 disposition report, the department reported that since his arrest, Trenton said he was smoking marijuana every other day, and he subsequently tested positive for an element in marijuana, THC, when he came to court for the initial disposition hearing date in July 2016.
Further, there was substantial evidence to suggest that his mother, despite her best intentions, would have difficulty supervising Trenton. As she told the court at the arraignment, he had previously left their home and lived elsewhere. She had a back condition which had seriously hampered her parenting abilities. Also, although she knew he had used marijuana on one occasion, he admitted to having used marijuana continuously.
All of this evidence provided sufficient support for the court's determination that Trenton would be well served by a six-month placement in Orin Allen to provide him with structure and the educational and other services that he needed. Trenton does not directly challenge this conclusion. Rather, he points to the evidence that would have justified the juvenile court's decision to place him in a less restrictive placement if it had chosen to do so. This includes that this was his first petition and he was reported to be getting along well with his mother and family, that he was now motivated to attend school, that he could have been placed in an in-home detention, fitted with an ankle monitor and ordered to attend regular classes, submit to drug testing and participate in a drug treatment program, and that he could have been ordered to participate in a community program to help him take responsibility for his misconduct. This is an argument that we reweigh the evidence. We decline to do so. "It is not the responsibility of this court to determine what we believe would be the most appropriate placement for a minor. This is the duty of the trial court, whose determination we reverse only if it has acted beyond the scope of reason." (In re Khamphouy S. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1135.) The court's determination was not beyond the scope of reason and, therefore, not an abuse of its discretion.
Also, Trenton's placement in Orin Allen was consistent with an interest in public safety and protection. His refusal to acknowledge his misconduct at all suggested he saw nothing wrong with it. This lent credence to the possibility that he would commit other crimes if placed in an in-home detention.
DISPOSITION
The disposition findings and order appealed from are affirmed.
/s/_________
STEWART, J.
We concur.
/s/_________
RICHMAN, Acting P.J.
/s/_________
MILLER, J.