In re David Q.
Filed 7/14/06 In re David Q. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re DAVID Q., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID Q., Defendant and Appellant. | A110936 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J0301433) |
David Q. timely appeals an order of the Juvenile Court committing him to the care of the California Youth Authority (CYA) for a maximum period of eight years, two months, and twelve days. David contends his commitment to CYA violated his constitutional right to due process. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. Offense and Treatment
David was born on August 23, 1988. A petition filed on January 22, 2001, alleged David committed a lewd and lascivious act on a child under age fourteen, in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), and sexual battery, in violation of Penal Code section 243.4. The allegations arose from an incident on Christmas Eve, 2000, when David was visiting family. During a game of hide-and-seek, David, then 12 years old, took his six-year old female cousin to a secluded area of the backyard. David admitted that while hiding with the victim he began having sexual urges. He put his hand down the front of her pants and fondled her vaginal area. While doing so, he inserted his index finger into the victim's vaginal opening, causing a laceration and bleeding.
On September 25, 2001, a dispositional hearing was held after the juvenile court found David committed the offenses alleged. The court entered a placement order and referred the case to the Family Preservation Unit for assessment. On November 5, 2001, through a placement review, the court ordered David be granted an extended trial visit in the home of his father and also that he participate in the Family Preservation Unit Program. In February 2002, Christina Bennett, Marriage and Family Therapist, prepared a sexual adjustment evaluation on David at the behest of Alameda County Probation Office. Bennett detected â€
