From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Victor F. (In re Victor F.)

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 27, 2020
No. D075579 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2020)

Opinion

D075579

01-27-2020

In re VICTOR F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR F., Defendant and Appellant.

Heather L. Beugen, 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, Charles C. Ragland and Scott C. Taylor, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JCM234394) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Aaron H. Katz, Judge. Affirmed. Heather L. Beugen, 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, Charles C. Ragland and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

After multiple probation violations, placements in various programs, and several years of failure to comply with court orders of the juvenile court, Victor F. (the Minor) was again placed in the Youthful Offender Unit (YOU). The Minor appeals contending that the trial court abused its discretion in not placing him in a less restrictive facility and that the court should have explained why it rejected other possible placements. We find these contentions to be without merit and affirm the court's placement order.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 2016, the Minor admitted he had engaged in oral copulation with a person prevented from resisting because of intoxication (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (i)). The Minor was declared a ward of the court and placed in the YOU program.

In January 2017, the Minor admitted he was in violation of his probation. He was again placed in the YOU program. The Minor was found in violation of probation in February 2017, December 2017, and February 2019. In each instance he was returned to the YOU program. In March 2019, the Minor was again found in violation of his probation. He was again placed in the YOU program and again ordered to undertake sex offender and substance abuse treatment.

The Minor filed a timely appeal from the March 2019 placement order.

DISCUSSION

At the time of his placement in this case, the Minor had already been placed in the Breaking Cycles program and other programs in which he had done poorly. Although the Minor had a long history of criminal activity and refusal to abide by court-imposed conditions, the Minor now contends the trial court abused its discretion in returning him to the YOU program. He argues that the court should have explained on the record why it did not select other programs and that we should assess whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the current placement. We will find the trial court acted well within its broad discretion in making one last-ditch attempt to correct the Minor's destructive behavior before he fully graduated to the adult criminal system. We will affirm.

Unfortunately, the Minor, who is now 18 has made his debut as an adult criminal. He was arrested in 2019 on a felony warrant for possession of a controlled substance.

A. Legal Principles

Juvenile courts have broad discretion in selecting appropriate placements for delinquent minors who have become wards of the court. We will only disturb the court's decisions on placements where the record shows a manifest abuse of the juvenile court's broad discretion. (In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1395; In re Edward C. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 813, 829.) It is not the role of the appellate court to decide what would be the most appropriate placement of a minor. (In re Khamphouy S. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1135.)

In making its placement decision, the juvenile court must consider the best interests of both the minor and the public. In making its decision, the court should also consider the minor's age, the circumstances and gravity of the offense, the minor's previous delinquent history, and the minor's behavior while on probation. (In re Jimmy P. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1679, 1684-1685; In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 404; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725.5.)

The juvenile court is not required to explain on the record why it rejected other possible placements as long as there is "some evidence to support the judge's implied determination that he sub silentio considered and rejected reasonable alternative dispositions." (In re Teofilio A. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 571, 577.)

B. Analysis

The juvenile court judge was very familiar with the Minor and his continuing refusal to comply with orders and his unwillingness to complete any programs for his rehabilitation. He had failed to take advantage of programs for sexual offenders or substance abuse. He walked out of a substance abuse program after only 90 minutes. In sum, the Minor, now 18 years-old, has a non-stop history of delinquent behavior, refusal to follow orders, and a complete unwillingness to undertake any program that might change his almost inevitable entry into the adult criminal law system.

An argument the court should have considered less restrictive alternatives for this minor is not persuasive. The court did not have to articulate further reasons to reject other placements. The Minor's dismal history speaks loudly enough to make clear the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

DISPOSITION

The order placing the Minor in the YOU program is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. O'ROURKE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Victor F. (In re Victor F.)

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 27, 2020
No. D075579 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2020)
Case details for

People v. Victor F. (In re Victor F.)

Case Details

Full title:In re VICTOR F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 27, 2020

Citations

No. D075579 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2020)