In re Charles C.
Filed 8/15/06 In re Charles C. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re CHARLES C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES C., Defendant and Appellant. |
F047421
(Super. Ct. No. JJD058563)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Hugh J. Loza, Commissioner.
Robert F. Kane, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, J. Robert Jibson and Janine R. Busch, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
In his first appearance before the juvenile court, 13 year-old appellant, Charles C., admitted two counts of lewd and lascivious acts with children under the age of 14 years and two similar counts were dismissed. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) After a contested dispositional hearing, the court adjudged Charles a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602)[1], committed him to the custody of the probation department to be placed in a group home for sex offenders, and imposed various terms of probation. On appeal, Charles challenges a condition of probation and the court's failure to exercise section 731, subdivision (b) discretion in setting his maximum term of commitment to the group home. We will modify the condition of probation and, as modified, will affirm the orders of the juvenile court.
FACTS
Charles, who was himself molested about six years ago, admitted molesting three of his younger cousins (aged 3, 6, and 7 years) in separate incidents in 2003 and 2004. There were additional victims as well.
At the disposition hearing, Charles's therapist testified Charles had been in counseling since 2003 to address his status as a victim initially and later to treat him as a sexual offender. The therapist opined it was crucial that Charles be supervised at all times and that he never have unsupervised contact with younger children. Charles's mother wanted him placed in her home rather than a group home. She believed that he would not reoffend given the treatment he had received to date, his continued counseling, and the new medication he was taking. In deciding to place Charles in a group home, the court noted that Charles had displayed a pattern of behavior over a period of time involving multiple, very young victims. Thus, he needed the structure and supervision provided by a group home.
DISCUSSION
1. Probation Condition
The court ordered as condition of probation number 37:
â€
