In re Martin U.
Filed 6/28/06 In re Martin U. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re MARTIN U., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | H029330 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV27233) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN U., Defendant and Appellant. |
On October 22, 2003, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition for juvenile wardship under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,[1] alleging that Martin U. (the minor), age 14, committed first degree burglary by entering an inhabited dwelling with the intent to commit theft. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a).) The juvenile court sustained the petition and placed the minor on supervised probation. After the minor violated probation three times, the juvenile court committed him to the Juvenile Rehabilitation Facilities (the Ranch) for 120 days and noted that his maximum time of confinement was six years.
The minor appeals from the dispositional order. He points out that under section 726, the juvenile court was required to set his maximum time of confinement at the maximum term provided under adult criminal law. If he had been committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA), however,
the court would have had discretion to set his maximum time of confinement at something less than the maximum adult term. (§ 731, subd. (b).) The minor claims that this disparity in the law violates his right to equal protection of the law. (U.S. Const., Amend. XIV; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7.) The minor also argues that the court committed him to the Ranch for retributive reasons and that the court erred in making the dispositional order without an updated social study. We reject the arguments and affirm the order.
I. Facts
The minor was arrested on August 10, 2003, following a police investigation of a residential burglary that had occurred the day before. The minor and two friends had allegedly entered the home of an acquaintance and had taken a stereo, DVD player, and some CDs. According to the social study filed at the time of the first dispositional hearing, the minor was living with his mother and four younger siblings and had just entered the ninth grade. During his middle school years the minor had 27 behavioral referrals for fighting, inappropriate language, truancy, defiance, and bringing a BB gun to school. At the dispositional hearing on November 12, 2003, the juvenile court sustained the petition and placed the minor on supervised probation with specified conditions.
On April 7, 2004, the minor was arrested at school and detained in juvenile hall based upon allegations that he had violated the conditions of his probation by associating with one of the co-participants in the burglary, violating school rules, possessing a knife with a locking blade, and violating Penal Code section 415 (fighting in a public place). At the dispositional hearing on May 12, 2004, the juvenile court found that the minor had violated his probation, released him to his mother, and continued him on probation subject to specified conditions.
By the fall of 2004, the minor was attending school fairly regularly and his grades were satisfactory. According to his mother, however, he had begun to develop a stubborn attitude and sometimes refused to participate in the programs required by his probation. His family had changed residences a number of times and by now was living with other family members. On December 20, 2004, the minor was involved with another minor in shoplifting a utility knife from a Wal-Mart store. The minor was found to have a small knife with a locking blade and a red marker in his possession at the time. When questioned by police, the minor denied he was on probation. He was cited and released.
On March 1, 2005, the minor was booked into juvenile hall for violating Penal Code section 69 (threatening an officer). The probation officer filed a notice of hearing under section 777 alleging the March 1 incident and the minor's possession of a knife and red marker in December as violations of probation.
The minor's mother reported that the minor's behavior had been getting progressively worse, he had begun associating with local gang members, and she had no control over him. The probation officer recommended that the minor be committed to the Ranch where the minor would have the opportunity to attend school regularly, participate in gang intervention programming, substance abuse counseling, and, if he desired, vocational training.
While in juvenile hall awaiting disposition the minor was disruptive and confrontational. The probation officer characterized him as â€
