Filed 12/28/17 In re Timothy B. CA5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re TIMOTHY B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TIMOTHY B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F074395

(Super. Ct. Nos. 14CEJ600770-1, 14CEJ600770-1A)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly J. Nystrom-Geist, Judge.
Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis A. Martinez and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Former minor Timothy B. (Timothy) contends on appeal that the juvenile court abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss his petition and seal his records pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 786. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2012, Timothy, who lived in Grass Valley, in Nevada County, California, was caught selling Vicodin at school—three pills for $5. He later explained it was his own prescription and he decided to sell it to help his family after his father lost his job. He said he had realized it was a bad idea. He said he had no desire to take illicit drugs because some members of his family had drug problems.
On June 28, 2012, a section 602 juvenile petition was filed in Nevada County, alleging Timothy sold hydrocodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and possessed a controlled substance without a prescription (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4060).
On August 14, 2012, the petition was amended to add possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a), a felony), which Timothy admitted in exchange for dismissal of the other two counts.
On November 13, 2012, the juvenile court placed Timothy on deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) for one year and ordered that he perform 20 hours of community service and two days of a work program.
On October 29, 2013, another section 602 petition was filed, alleging Timothy was intoxicated in public (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f), a misdemeanor) and possessed less than one ounce of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b), an infraction).
On December 10, 2013, Timothy admitted the new offenses. The juvenile court extended his DEJ by one year and ordered that he complete an alcohol and drug program.
On April 28, May 6, and May 12, 2014, Timothy tested positive for marijuana. On May 14, 2014, he was cited by the police for being a minor in possession of alcohol.
On May 20, 2014, the probation department filed a DEJ noncompliance notice because Timothy continued to use illicit substances and was charged with possession of an alcoholic beverage by a minor in a public place (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25662).
Timothy failed to appear at the hearing and a warrant was issued for his arrest. On July 23, 2014, he was arrested as he was walking home. He showed objective signs of intoxication and his blood alcohol concentration was 0.057 percent.
At the hearing on July 25, 2014, Timothy admitted possessing alcohol and testing positive for marijuana and alcohol. The court found that he had violated DEJ. The court vacated DEJ, declared Timothy a ward, placed him on probation with 60 days’ custody, and again ordered him to complete an alcohol and drug program.
On December 8, 2014, Timothy’s case was transferred to Fresno County.
On December 29, 2014, the juvenile court reduced Timothy’s felony possession of a controlled substance offense to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18). The court noted that the maximum period of confinement was one year two months.
A year and one-half later, on July 7, 2016, the probation department requested that the juvenile court consider granting Timothy (now 18 years old) relief under section 786.
The probation officer’s report prepared for the hearing noted that Timothy had not completed substance abuse counseling, but had tested negative for drugs twice. He had completed his community service and had finished his junior year of high school. The officer wrote: “[Timothy] completed his Court ordered probation conditions and stayed out of trouble; [Timothy’s] father reported [Timothy] had not been giving him any trouble at home and his behavior was improving. [Timothy] was also working part time at a local swamp [sic] meet.” The officer summarized that she believed Timothy had satisfactorily completed the terms and conditions of probation, and she recommended the court so find and grant section 786 relief.
At the hearing on the motion on August 5, 2016, the following occurred:
“THE COURT: Thank you. I do have the report from probation, which I have read and reviewed. And any comments today from probation?
“PROBATION OFFICER: Yes, we’re recommending that the [section] 786 [relief] be granted. [Timothy] did not submit any positive drug tests while he was on probation. He completed his community service hours. Although we do note that he did not complete substance abuse counseling, the fact that he did not submit any positive drug tests as well, the officer is recommending that he satisfactorily completed probation.
“THE COURT: Comments from the People?
“[PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, this is one in which the People are objecting to the sealing. And while I do see that [Timothy] has done most of what he was told to do, the concern I have is that his charges—this was a transfer-in from Nevada County. The concern I have is what was transferred in was all drug-related charges on the -1 [petition]. That was a misdemeanor [Health and Safety Code, section] 11377 subdivision (a), and the -1A [petition] was the [Penal Code] 647[, subdivision] (f) attached with [a Health and Safety Code section] 11357(b), all of those are drug-related. It appears that the heart of what [Timothy] had to do was a substance abuse program because the charges were drug-related are—all of them are drug charges and that did not get completed. [¶] So even despite his negative tests, we’re going to object that the main component of what he needed to do based on the charges were not completed, and we would argue that is not satisfactory completion. [¶] … [¶]
“THE COURT: Thank you. And comments from the defense?
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, we’re in agreement with probation’s assessment, and we believe that the -1 and -1A petition[s] should be granted [section] 786 relief. We believe in looking at the totality of the circumstances here, and everything that he completed, it looks like—even though he didn’t do the substance abuse counseling, he was able to maintain negative tests on at least two occasions which is very great considering his underlying charges. And it looks like he was able to work out his substance abuse issues on his own. He finished his community service, was in school, and did everything else. So we’re requesting [section] 786 relief.
“THE COURT: Thank you. At this time the Court has reviewed not only probation’s report, but also Timothy’s file. Timothy was a transfer-in. He had been placed on [DEJ] for drug-related charges. He failed to complete and his [DEJ] was terminated for substance abuse issues. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Timothy did not satisfactorily complete his terms and conditions of probation. He picked up charges while on [DEJ], did not comply with his [DEJ] that was lifted, and clearly substance abuse treatment was an essential component of his terms and conditions of probation, and that goes back to—prior to this Court receiving his files.
“The Court finds Timothy has not met the requirements of … Section 786 because he failed to substantially comply with the reasonable terms or conditions of probation that were within his capacity to perform. And completion of substance abuse counseling was an ongoing theme, and clearly the centerpiece of his treatment program. [¶] … [¶]
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: We do believe that the additional charge that he incurred, the [Penal Code section] 647[, subdivision] (f) misdemeanor and the [Health and Safety Code, section] 11357 sub[division] (b) infraction are not crimes of moral turpitude, even though he became a ward of the court. Therefore, we’re only dealing with a potential violation of probation in showing that he actually came around and finished everything he was supposed to except for the substance abuse counseling, and we’re objecting on the record.
“THE COURT: Thank you. Objection is noted. The Court’s order is not changed. The Court did not base the denial on picking up a subsequent felony, because he did not. That was reduced pursuant to Prop[osition] 47. The Court did not base the denial on a misdemeanor or moral turpitude. The Court based the denial on Timothy’s failure to substantially comply with the reasonable orders or terms or conditions of probation that were within his capacity to perform, as the substance abuse program was, from the beginning, the very most important thing ordered in this case. Thank you.”
On September 14, 2016, Timothy filed a notice of appeal.


DISCUSSION
Timothy argues the court abused its discretion in concluding he had not substantially complied with his probation conditions and thus should not be granted section 786 relief. We see no abuse of discretion.
Section 786 provides that if a ward of the juvenile court “satisfactorily completes” probation, “the court shall order the petition dismissed” and “shall order sealed all records pertaining to the dismissed petition in the custody of the juvenile court, and in the custody of law enforcement agencies, the probation department, or the Department of Justice.” (§ 786, subd. (a).) Satisfactory completion of probation “shall be deemed to have occurred if the person has no new findings of wardship or conviction for a felony offense or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude during the period of … probation and if he or she has not failed to substantially comply with the reasonable orders of supervision or probation that are within his or her capacity to perform.” (Id., subd. (c)(1), italics added.)
“Substantial compliance is not perfect compliance. Substantial compliance is commonly understood to mean ‘compliance with the substantial or essential requirements of something (as a statute or contract) that satisfies its purpose or objective even though its formal requirements are not complied with.’ ” (In re A.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 697, 709 (A.V.), italics added.)
A decision to grant or deny section 786 relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (A.V., supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 701 [“court has discretion under section 786 to find the ward has or has not substantially complied with … probation so as to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed it”].) Under this standard, “ ‘a trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the judgment [or order] is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ ” (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1004; see People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 371 [“[a] court abuses its discretion when its ruling ‘falls outside the bounds of reason’ ”].)
Here, the juvenile court expressly found that Timothy had not substantially complied with his probation requirements. Substantial evidence supports that finding: Timothy had not completed the required substance abuse counseling. The court was well within its discretion to conclude that this probation requirement was the most important one based on Timothy’s conduct and charges. The probation officer’s recommendation, the two negative drug tests, and defense counsel’s claim that Timothy apparently “was able to work out his substance abuse issues on his own” did not render the court’s decision an abuse of discretion. The court’s decision that this counseling was the necessary centerpiece—or as case law calls it, an “ ‘essential requirement[]’ ” (A.V., supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 709)—of Timothy’s rehabilitation was a rational decision, not an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd decision.
As for the sealing of Timothy’s records, Timothy is not without a remedy. He may petition the juvenile court to seal his records under section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(A).
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order denying former minor Timothy B. relief under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 is affirmed.