In re Alonso C.

Filed 8/2/06 In re Alonso C. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.

Alonso C. was declared a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after admitting to assault with a deadly weapon and the personal use of a firearm. (All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) After a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court committed Alonso to the California Youth Authority (CYA). Alonso contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the CYA. We affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

The People filed a section 602 petition alleging that 15-year-old Alonso had committed the crimes of attempted murder, assault with a firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm. The petition also alleged that he personally used a firearm and inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim. After Alonso admitted that he committed assault with a firearm and personally used a firearm, the People dismissed the remaining counts and allegations.

The probation officer's social study report indicated that the charges stemmed from Alonso's participation in a fight. After a group of Black male juveniles attacked Alonso's friend, he pulled a handgun from his waistband and shot one of the individuals in the buttocks as the victim ran away. Alsonso approached the victim and pointed the gun at the victim's head. As the victim begged for his life, Alonso stated several times, "This is for fucking with us," and pulled the trigger, but the gun did not fire. Alonso then ran from the scene while firing another shot at the victim over his shoulder.

Alonso had gunshot residue on his hands, and a follow up investigation revealed that he, his friend and another individual were involved in a physical altercation at school with the victim's brother that resulted in Alonso's expulsion. A search of Alonso's bedroom revealed a piece of paper with gang-type writing and the word "Dreamer." The police determined that Alonso was a member of an undocumented gang and that his gang moniker was "Dreamer." Although several witnesses and the victim identified Alonso as the shooter, he denied shooting the victim or gang involvement and claimed that he had fired a gun with his father a day before the incident.

Before his arrest, Alonso had no criminal history but had been involved in three fights at school. Alonso's mother believed he was innocent of the charges, that he was not involved in a gang and that he followed rules. A psychological evaluation indicated Alonso did not have significant anti-authoritarian traits or character deficits, but had limited coping skills and repressed emotions that could result in outbursts of depression or rage.

After considering the probation officer's social study report, the psychological evaluation and other information, the juvenile court committed Alonso, then 16 years old, to CYA for a maximum term of 14 years. Alonso appeals.

DISCUSSION

Alonso contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the CYA because there was no evidence to support its conclusions that his rehabilitative needs required CYA placement or that such a placement was necessary for public safety. We find no abuse of discretion.

To order a CYA commitment, the juvenile court must find that such a commitment likely would benefit the ward (§ 734) and otherwise serve the statutory aims of protecting the public, promoting accountability and guiding reform. (§ 202, subd. (a) & (b).) Also relevant are the age of the minor, nature, duration, and context of the delinquent conduct, including the gravity of the offense. (§ 725.5.) A CYA commitment may be considered without previous attempts at rehabilitating the minor under less restrictive placements (In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396), and the commitment decision may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the juvenile court abused its discretion. (In re Todd W. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 408, 416.)

Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence supported the CYA commitment. The juvenile court noted its authority to commit Alonso to the CYA, despite his lack of a prior criminal history, if it believed the commitment was in the best interest of the community and the minor. After commenting on the very serious nature of the crime and the need for community safety, the juvenile court rejected commitments to a camp or short term program based on their open nature and Alonso's need for more structure and education. Alonso performed well in structured settings, such as juvenile hall, and the juvenile court reasonably found he would benefit from a CYA commitment, including the structure, discipline, education and treatment he would receive there.

Although Alonso admitted the offenses and did not want to withdraw his admissions at the dispositional hearing, his comments to the court suggested not only a lack of remorse, but a continued denial of responsibility for his actions. Alonso also denied being a gang member, but he carried a concealed and loaded handgun, had a gang moniker, admitted having gang members as friends, and he reluctantly admitted to the court that the incident was gang related. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the juvenile court's commitment of Alonso to the CYA did not constitute an abuse of discretion and reversal is not required.

Alonso also asserts the trial court did not properly exercise its discretion because it lacked information regarding inadequacies at the CYA. While it is true that there have been negative reports about the CYA, Alonso did not raise these concerns below and cannot raise them for the first time on appeal. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356 ["[C]omplaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal."].) In any event, there was no showing that the trial court was unaware of this information and we cannot speculate as to what the juvenile court knew or did not know about the CYA.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

McINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Real Estate Attorney.