In re Todde B.
Filed 3/29/06 In re Todde B. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re TODDE B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TODDE B., Defendant and Appellant. | E038762 (Super.Ct.No. J194112) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Margaret A. Powers, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick E. DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Robert M. Foster, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Erika Hiramatsu, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Introduction
Alleging abuse of discretion, appellant Todde B. (appellant) requests modification of his five-year sentence to the California Youth Authority (CYA). We find no abuse of discretion and will affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
Over a three-year period, appellant, born in August 1989, repeatedly molested his two younger sisters, ages six and 10. The molestations, which began when the victims were about four and eight, consisted of direct touching of the girls' genital areas, oral copulation and penile penetration of their vaginal and anal orifices, masturbation to ejaculation in front of them, and threats if they reported these actions to their mother. He did not molest his older sister, age 13. On April 28, 2004, following a plea bargain in which appellant admitted two counts of sexual battery with restraint (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a)),[1] the juvenile court dismissed two counts of lewd act upon a child under 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) and placed appellant on probation with terms and conditions.
Between May 2004 and February 2005, appellant, who had a long history of behavior problems at home and at school, repeatedly violated probation and failed to adjust to three separate residential placements. On April 4, 2005, the juvenile court ordered him transferred to CYA for a 90-day diagnostic evaluation. The social worker, psychologist, and probation officer who evaluated appellant all concluded that he should be placed at CYA. Regarding the proposed period of confinement, the probation officer identified three aggravating circumstances and two mitigating circumstances under California Rules of Court, rules 4.421 and 4.423. [2] The probation officer concluded that appellant should be committed to CYA â€
