Filed 6/2/17 P. v. J.C. CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A149820

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J1200982)


J.C. appeals from a judgment entered on his admission of violating probation. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 75 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has advised appellant that he may personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wishes to call to the court’s attention, but appellant has filed no such brief.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
On June 29, 2012, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition charging appellant with felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)), and two misdemeanors: giving false information to a law enforcement officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)), and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)).
A separate wardship petition was filed on July 10, 2012, by the San Francisco District Attorney charging appellant with three felonies: second degree robbery (§§ 664/212.5, subd. (c)), and two assaults (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Appellant entered an admission to an amended count of attempted second degree robbery, and the assault charges were dismissed. The San Francisco case was then transferred to Contra Costa County for disposition.
On August 8, 2012, appellant admitted the three offenses charged in the June 29, 2012 petition filed in Contra Costa County, except that the grand theft was amended to make it a misdemeanor. On October 25, 2012, wardship was declared and appellant was ordered into placement; eventually at the Teen Triumph program. The conditions of his probation included gang conditions and that he have no contact with his named “co-responsibles” and victims.
Nearly five months later, on January 29, 2013, the district attorney filed a petition charging appellant with violating probation, in that he ran away from the Teen Triumph program. After he was returned to custody and admitted the violation, appellant was on April 5, 2013, placed in the Rites of Passage program.
When he failed to return to Rites of Passage after being released on a home pass, appellant was again, on April 28, 2014, charged with violating probation. In a new wardship petition, he was also charged with three felonies: possession of an assault weapon, felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a short-barreled rifle. (§§ 30605, subd. (a), 29800, subd. (a)(1), & 33215.) Appellant pled no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the other two counts were dismissed. On June 30, 2014, appellant was placed in the Bar-O Boys Ranch, and the gang conditions were reimposed.
On October 9, 2014, appellant was charged, for the third time, with violating probation; this time for refusing to follow staff directives and leaving the premises of the program without permission. After he admitted the violation but refused to return to the Bar-O Ranch program, appellant was committed to the Youthful Offenders Treatment Program (YOTP), which is located at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall and designed for older and more sophisticated youth. Appellant appealed two of the conditions of probation, claiming they were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. In an unpublished opinion (People v. J.C. (May 21, 2015, A143693) [nonpub. opn.]), we modified the conditions and otherwise affirmed the conditions.
On October 8, 2015, appellant’s commitment to YOTP was set aside and he was allowed to return to his mother’s home on home supervision. Three months later the court shifted placement to appellant’s aunt’s home in the City of Merced and the case was transferred to Merced County for probation supervision.
About four months later, appellant was arrested in Antioch while in a car with gang members, and firearms were found in the vehicle. A petition charging appellant with again violating probation was filed in Merced County and the case was transferred back to the Contra Costa County Superior Court, where appellant admitted the probation violation.
On July 21, 2016, appellant was ordered held in juvenile hall for 90 days or until he completed high school, whichever occurred first, and probation was ordered to “terminate unsuccessfully” on October 11, 2016. Numerous conditions of probation were imposed, including that appellant “shall not knowingly associate with anyone known to the minor to be gang member or associated with a gang, any member of KNI or Klap Shit gang, or anyone the [probation officer] informs the minor to be, a gang member or associated with a gang member.” A review date was set for October 11, 2016, the date probation was set to terminate unsuccessfully.
On August 15, 2016, a little less than two months before the hearing set for October 11, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed another petition alleging that petitioner violated probation in that he was arrested by the Vacaville Police Department for grand theft and conspiracy in consort with four other known members of the Klap Shit gang members, all of whom were arrested for robbing clothing and shoes from numerous stores in the Vacaville mall outlet. Stolen clothing and two loaded firearms were recovered in the trunk of the vehicle.
At the time of his arrest appellant admitted to a probation officer that upon release from YOTP, he made a poor impulsive decision to go out with friends who were active Klap Shit gang members. He thought they were going to a party, did not know they planned to steal clothes, and felt that since he was already with his friends he “may as well steal clothes as well.” Appellant said he had tried to leave the gang lifestyle behind when he moved to Merced. He went to Antioch to celebrate a friend’s birthday. Appellant said his girlfriend, who he loves, is pregnant with his child. He did not know the due date of his baby’s birth and did not attend any of his girlfriend’s doctor appointments because he was in custody during most of her pregnancy. Appellant wanted to “get out and do better” either by getting a job at Safeway, joining a construction union, or becoming an electrician.
On August 31, 2016, when he was arraigned on the probation violation, appellant requested a Marsden hearing. After the request was denied, appellant admitted the violation of probation.
At the September 26, 2016 dispositional hearing, the court heard from three defense witnesses. Means, appellant’s aunt, asked the court to allow appellant to live with her at her three-bedroom home in Brentwood. Means had been employed at Ernst & Young, an accounting firm, and was retired, and studying psychology through an online program run by University of California Berkeley. She believed she could provide appellant the structure he required. Describing herself as “a strong, Black mother, who’s raised four sons, singlehandedly,” Means attributed appellant’s criminal acts as a form of retaliation for not having a father in his life. She testified that if appellant was placed in her home she was not going to let him “get by with anything.”
Appellant’s mother believed his aunt had a lot to offer appellant, and asked the court to place appellant with her. She noted that appellant had graduated from high school while in YOTP, and had seen a positive change in his attitude. She did not believe appellant would profit from being returned to YOTP.
Testifying in his own behalf, appellant told the court that after obtaining his high school diploma he had been accepted at “Sacramento College” and had been attending classes while on probation until his violation. He agreed he would not profit from being returned to the YOTP program because he wanted to resume college classes and was also interested in working for his cousin, who owned a truck driving business, “because I have a baby on the way soon.”
Anticipating the court might feel he had to “do a little bit of time, whether it be 30 days, 60 days, or even the year and six months in the YOTP,” appellant urged that he be sent to the West County Detention Facility, not YOTP, “because they have tons of programs for adults, such as myself, like job classes for computer arts and agriculture” and also behavior classes, mentor counselling, drug and alcohol programs superior to those at YOTP, and residents can also obtain financial assistance and help with housing and Medi-Cal, as well as an educational program connected to Diablo Valley College that would enable him “to go to college online and get actual college credits.” Appellant felt it would be better for him if he lived with his aunt in Merced or his cousins in Sacramento who have a trucking business that could employ him, than it would be to live with his aunt in Brentwood. Appellant acknowledged he had made a bad choice in associating with members of the Klap Shit gang, which only got him in trouble, but denied being a member of the gang.
The probation officer testified that appellant was not yet 19, and therefore could not be placed in the West County jail, and that a ranch commitment was inappropriate because he had previously been unsuccessfully committed to the Bar-O Ranch program. In the end, the probation department rested on its written report and recommendation to the court. The probation department report noted that appellant had been a ward of the court and involved in gangs for the past six years, and that despite numerous interventions by the court and probation with different programs, he “has continued . . . in an exploitive lifestyle. [Appellant] has participated in cognitive behavioral therapy, substance abuse treatment, gang intervention, and Thinking for Change treatment programs, yet he continues to use poor judgment and act impulsively. [Appellant] lacks leadership skills and the maturity to weigh his options rather than just following the crowd. [His] statement that he did not know that his friends were going to steal clothes, but that he might as well steal them too since he was there, is a direct testament to his impulsiveness and foresight into the consequences for such behavior.” The probation department was particularly concerned about appellant’s association with the Klap Shit gang, which had been “actively feuding over the past year” with “another very violent criminal street gang,” the Broad Day Killers, and members of both gangs are often found in possession of firearms. The probation officer noted that appellant “has been arrested twice in the past four months with other gang members and firearms have been found in the vehicle he was in,” and that he “was out of custody less than two days before being apprehended on new adult charges and with other known gang members.” Appellant “has expressed his desire to implement changes in his life and ‘do better,’ ” the probation officer stated, “however he has failed to show his ability to do so” and “the concern [appellant] is going to continue with his criminal behavior and wind up in prison or deceased at an early age is overwhelming.”
In light of the above views and the limited options realistically available to the court, the probation department recommended that appellant be committed to the YOTP, where he “will be able to revisit such evidence based programs as Thinking for Change, gang intervention, victim empathy, and individual and group therapy.”
Sharing the concerns expressed by the probation department, and particularly concerned about the fact appellant was arrested with gang members just two days after being released from juvenile hall, the court accepted the department’s recommendation. The court observed that the YOTP had numerous counselling programs, and others who had gone through the program twice had benefitted from the experience. The court was loath to commit appellant to jail, where he would be exposed to inmates who, but for realignment, would be in state prison. The court set the maximum period for which appellant could be confined at four years, six months, or his 21st birthday, whichever occurs first. The court granted appellant credit for time served of two years and 335 days.
DISCUSSION
Appellant’s timely notice of appeal states that the appeal is from the dispositional order dated September 27, 2016.
A trial court may revoke probation “if the interests of justice so require and the court, in its judgment, has reason to believe from the report of the probation officer or otherwise that that the person has violated any of the conditions of his or her probation . . . .” (§ 1203.2, subd. (a); see Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The standard of proof for establishing a violation of probation is a preponderance of the evidence, which vests the trial court with very broad discretion. (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 443.) Absent manifest abuse, the exercise of such discretion is not disturbed by the appellate courts. (See In re Dearo (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 141, 143; In re Gonzalez (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 616, 619.) Denial of probation and commitment of appellant to the YOTP program was clearly not an abuse of discretion.
Our review of the record shows that appellant was at all material times represented by able counsel who protected his rights, there was no sentencing error, and there are no other legal issues warranting further briefing.
DISPOSITION
Accordingly, the order of September 27, 2016, expressly adopting the recommendations of the probation officer as the findings of the court and detaining appellant in the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall pending his delivery to the Youth Offender Treatment Program, is affirmed.

_________________________
Kline, P.J.


We concur:


_________________________
Stewart, J.


_________________________
Miller, J.