Filed 7/28/17 In re Isaac R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ISAAC R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ISAAC R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073997

(Super. Ct. No. 513044)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Valli K. Israels, Judge.
Holly Jackson, 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, Catherine Chatman and R. Todd Marshall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Isaac R. was the subject of eight successive Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petitions. The first was filed in July 2012; the last in September 2015. Eventually, on June 17, 2016, the juvenile court committed Isaac to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Isaac contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to DJJ. We disagree and affirm the disposition order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Isaac was born in July 1999. On July 18, 2012, a section 602, subdivision (a), petition was filed charging Isaac with two counts of battery and one count of resisting arrest. One count of battery was dismissed and the other allegations of the petition were found true on September 10, 2012; the juvenile court also found that continued placement in the home was contrary to the needs of the minor. At disposition, the juvenile court placed Isaac on probation, conditioned on 45 days in juvenile hall with 28 of those days on home commitment.
On December 12, 2012, a second section 602 petition was filed. This petition charged Isaac with attempted carjacking and possession of marijuana for sale. On January 3, 2013, Isaac admitted the lesser felony offense of attempted car theft and the marijuana charge was dismissed. A disposition social study noted that Isaac’s problems appeared to stem from “dysfunctional family life, lack of respect for laws, lack of respect for property of others and lack of respect for safety of others.” At disposition, Isaac was placed on probation, with the condition he serve 75 days in juvenile hall, of which 37 would be home commitment.
In September 2013, the probation officer alleged Isaac had violated probation by violating curfew, using drugs and alcohol, and violating laws and prior court orders. Isaac admitted the violations on September 27, 2013. The juvenile court readmitted Isaac to probation on the condition he serve another 30 days in juvenile hall.
In October 2013, a third section 602 petition was filed, charging Isaac with felony assault with a firearm and participation in a criminal street gang. On November 13, 2013, Isaac admitted a lesser charge of misdemeanor gang participation in exchange for dismissal of the felony assault charge. The disposition report noted that Isaac had spent a total of 150 days in juvenile hall, failed to comply with court orders, and exhibited no remorse for any of his conduct. The probation officer recommended another chance on probation for Isaac. On November 27, 2013, the juvenile court readmitted Isaac to probation, subject to serving 90 days in juvenile hall.
A fourth section 602 petition was filed on February 21, 2014, charging Isaac with felony terrorist threats with the personal use of a shotgun, and felony participation in a criminal street gang. The detention report recommended Isaac be removed from the home. Isaac remained at juvenile hall until April 1, 2014, when the matter was dismissed without prejudice.
A fifth petition pursuant to section 602 was filed on April 8, 2014, charging Isaac with felony possession of methamphetamine and misdemeanor possession of ammunition by a minor. Isaac admitted the felony possession of methamphetamine offense in exchange for dismissal of the other charge.
The disposition report noted that Isaac’s performance was unsatisfactory in overall adjustment, school behavior and performance, response to parental discipline, and on probation. The probation officer considered a group home placement, but stated a serious concern that Isaac would have a dangerous impact on other minors in the group home. Had Isaac been eligible for placement in DJJ, the probation officer indicated such a placement would be “heavily considered.” Because Isaac was ineligible for DJJ commitment and unsuitable for a group home placement, the probation officer recommended a “lengthy commitment” in juvenile hall.
The juvenile court continued Isaac as a ward of the court, ordered him committed to juvenile hall for 180 days, and admitted him to formal probation after completion of his juvenile hall commitment.
A sixth section 602 petition was filed on August 19, 2014, charging Isaac with battery and public fighting. On September 4, 2014, Isaac admitted the public fighting charge in exchange for dismissal of the battery offense. The disposition report noted Isaac’s failure to appreciate the seriousness of his conduct and lack of remorse. The probation officer opined that Isaac needed strict programming because he continued to engage in ongoing, violent behavior.
On September 18, 2014, Isaac was committed to juvenile hall for 35 days. Following completion of his time in juvenile hall, Isaac was to be released to the custody of placement personnel.
Isaac initially was placed with the Rite of Passage program. However, Isaac had behavioral issues and was a “‘constant disruption,’” attempted to flee, and assaulted others placed in the program. By March 2015, Isaac appeared to be making progress and was allowed to continue in the program placement, eventually completing the program on July 24, 2015.
Isaac was returned to a home placement to live with his aunt. On August 4, 2015, Isaac was observed wearing gang colors and hanging out at a Norteño haunt, which was prohibited. The juvenile court, however, in September 2015, continued the home placement with his aunt and allowed Isaac to remain on probation.
A seventh section 602 petition was filed on September 18, 2015, charging Isaac with possession of ammunition by a minor. Isaac failed to appear in court on October 21, 2015, as ordered and a bench warrant issued. Isaac surrendered to probation later that day.
On November 16, 2015, the probation officer filed a violation of probation against Isaac. Isaac had been a ward of the juvenile court since September 2012, had spent 246 days in custody in juvenile hall during that time, and was on probation when not in custody. He failed drug tests, violated electronic monitoring conditions, and was failing in school.
Isaac failed to appear on November 16, 2015, as ordered on the probation violation. He was arrested on December 9, 2015. On January 5, 2016, Isaac admitted the probation violations and the ammunition charge was dismissed.
The disposition report noted Isaac’s “extremely violent” prior record as a juvenile, his unsatisfactory behavior on probation and in school, and recommended another group home placement. On January 19, 2016, the juvenile court continued Isaac on probation, with the condition he serve 42 days in juvenile hall.
On February 1, 2016, Glen Mills School in Pennsylvania accepted Isaac into their program. Isaac refused to accept the placement, stating “‘keep me here or send me to DJJ.’” The juvenile court found that probation, custodial time in juvenile hall, and in-state group home placements had all failed to reform Isaac.
A second out-of-state placement was sought; however, while awaiting a placement, Isaac assaulted another minor at juvenile hall. As a result, an eighth section 602 petition was filed on February 23, 2016, charging Isaac with assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury. At the May 23, 2016, jurisdictional hearing, the charges were found true.
The disposition report noted that Isaac’s performance on probation was completely unsatisfactory and he had a lengthy and violent juvenile criminal history. The probation officer considered a DJJ placement, but the Glen Mills program in Pennsylvania was willing to accept Isaac and the recommendation was for the out-of-state placement. Should the out-of-state placement fail to reform Isaac, the recommendation was for a commitment to DJJ.
At the June 17, 2016, disposition hearing, the juvenile court reduced Isaac’s prior felony methamphetamine conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. The juvenile court determined that Isaac should be committed to the DJJ for a maximum period of confinement of four years.
Isaac filed a timely notice of appeal on June 27, 2016.
DISCUSSION
Isaac contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to DJJ. We disagree.
Welfare and Institutions Code section 202, subdivision (b), provides that minors “under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a consequence of delinquent conduct shall, in conformity with the interests of public safety and protection, receive care, treatment, and guidance that is consistent with their best interest, that holds them accountable for their behavior, and that is appropriate for their circumstances.” The minor’s rehabilitation and public safety are both important considerations in a juvenile disposition. (In re J.W. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 663, 667.)
“The purpose of juvenile delinquency laws is twofold: (1) to serve the ‘best interests’ of the delinquent ward by providing care, treatment, and guidance to rehabilitate the ward and ‘enable him or her to be a law-abiding and productive member of his or her family and the community,’ and (2) to ‘provide for the protection and safety of the public .…’ (§ 202, subds. (a), (b) & (d); [citations].)” (In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 614.) “In determining the judgment and order to be made in any case in which the minor is found to be a person described in Section 602, the court shall consider, in addition to other relevant and material evidence, (1) the age of the minor, (2) the circumstances and gravity of the offense committed by the minor, and (3) the minor’s previous delinquent history.” (§ 725.5.)
The juvenile system is designed to give juvenile courts maximum flexibility in fashioning a disposition. (In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 411–412.) A juvenile court’s commitment decision will be reversed only on a showing of abuse of discretion. “‘“A reviewing court must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court .…”’” (In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187, 199.)
A DJJ commitment is not an abuse of discretion where the record demonstrates “both a probable benefit to the minor … and the inappropriateness or ineffectiveness of less restrictive alternatives.” (In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396.)
In this case, less restrictive placements were tried repeatedly and failed to effect any change for the better in Isaac’s behavior. In-home placement, group home placement, juvenile hall, and probation all failed to reform Isaac; Isaac rejected out-of-state placement. The only viable remaining placement was DJJ.
No fewer than eight section 602 petitions were filed against Isaac, with Isaac’s offenses going from simple battery and attempted car theft, to assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury. In addition, Isaac was increasingly involved with a gang and using alcohol and drugs. The restrictive environment at DJJ would provide for the protection and safety of the public and afford an opportunity for Isaac to avail himself of the DJJ program and reform his behavior, which no less restrictive alternative had accomplished. (In re J.W., supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at pp. 667–668.)
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing Isaac to DJJ. (In re Angela M., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397.)
DISPOSITION
The June 17, 2016, commitment order is affirmed.