Filed 11/26/18 In re J.S. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT*

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Edward M. Lacy, Jr., Judge. (Retired judge of the Stanislaus County Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)

Candice L. Christensen, 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, Louis M. Vasquez and Ian Whitney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Minor J.S. contends on appeal that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Fourteen-year-old minor was known as a bully on campus. In August 2015, he started harassing a special needs student at school. Over time, the harassment escalated. On March 4, 2016, minor, now 15 years old, took the bus with the student, which was unusual. Minor did not live near the student and did not usually take the bus. On the bus, he verbally threatened the student and demanded money from him. The bus driver threatened to turn the bus around and go back to school. Minor disembarked when the student got off at his stop. Minor approached the student and again demanded money. When the student failed to produce money, minor punched him in the face. Minor continued assaulting him until student’s friend, also a special needs student, pushed minor off of the student. Minor turned and punched the friend in the throat. At this point, the student and his friend ran toward their homes. Minor and some other students followed the student home. Minor told the student’s mother, “ ‘I’m the one who hit your son, he owes me $30!’ ” When the student’s mother told minor to leave her property, he told her, “ ‘If you do that, I’m going to scratch your car, bitch.’ ” Another student told her, “ ‘I’m going to fuck you up!’ ” and refused to leave the property. Minor was taken into custody and booked into juvenile hall.

On March 8, 2016, a juvenile wardship petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,[1] alleging minor had committed attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664) and misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242).

The probation officer prepared a report on minor’s suitability for deferred entry of judgment. The officer stated that minor had punched the student in the face in attempts to obtain $30 from the student. The report noted that minor’s home behavior was marginal in that he would leave home without permission. His school adjustment was also marginal in that he had one failing grade and at least five suspensions for being involved in a physical altercation, being defiant, and having marijuana on campus. Minor appeared to be self-medicating with marijuana to cope with his anger. Minor’s aggressive behavior was escalating; he could be considered a threat to the safety of himself and the community due to his poor anger management skills. He would benefit from a higher level of supervision to address his drug use and anger management. The officer concluded minor was unsuitable for deferred entry of judgment.

On March 16, 2016, minor admitted the attempted robbery allegation. The juvenile court dismissed the battery allegation, sustained the petition, and found minor within the court’s jurisdiction. Minor was released on electronic monitoring.

On March 24, 2016, minor got upset over an argument at home. He cut off his monitor and left the house without permission.

On March 29, 2016, minor was placed back in juvenile hall.

On April 5, 2016, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court declared minor a ward of the court and placed him in the custody of his mother under the supervision of the probation officer. The court imposed various terms and conditions of probation, and ordered him to serve 120 days in juvenile hall.[2]

On June 2, 2016, the juvenile court denied a request to release minor early on electronic monitoring, noting that he had been involved in 10 incidents in juvenile hall since his detention.

On October 14, 2016, a violation of probation notice (§ 777) was filed, alleging minor failed to comply with school rules and regulations, failed to obey his curfew, and knowingly used or possessed a controlled substance without a valid prescription. He had been bullying students at school, using profanity, and taking other students’ property. He had earned 16 detentions, but had served only one.

On October 17, 2016, minor admitted the allegations. The court revoked and reinstated probation, and continued minor as a ward. The court placed minor in juvenile hall for 90 days, and ordered 45 days of electronic monitoring thereafter.

On December 26, 2016, minor and his companion stole two pair of expensive shoes from someone with whom minor had arranged online to meet and buy the shoes. When they met, minor’s companion exposed a gun in his waistband and he and minor fled with the shoes.

On January 17, 2017, a second violation of probation notice was filed, alleging minor, now 16 years old, failed to obey his probation officer’s orders, knowingly used or possessed a controlled substance without a valid prescription, and failed to report to his probation officer in person.

On January 19, 2017, a new juvenile wardship petition was filed pursuant to section 602, alleging minor had committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and conspiracy to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 182). As to the former, the petition also alleged minor was armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Minor was detained in juvenile hall.

On March 2, 2017, the juvenile court held a contested jurisdictional hearing. The court found the robbery allegation true, but found the conspiracy to commit robbery allegation and the firearm allegation not true. Minor admitted the violation of probation.

On April 3, 2017, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court continued minor as a ward and placed him in the custody of his mother under the supervision of the probation officer. The court ordered him to serve 300 days in juvenile hall.

On April 20, 2017, minor filed a notice of appeal. He contended insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that he committed robbery. We affirmed in an unpublished opinion (In re J.S. (July 9, 2018, No. F075517) [nonpub. opn.]).

On June 2, 2017, the juvenile court held a custody review hearing. The court modified minor’s commitment and ordered that he could be released from juvenile hall after July 1, 2017, at the hall’s discretion. On August 8, 2017, minor was released.

On October 7, 2017, minor took his mother’s vehicle without her permission and his whereabouts were unknown. On October 10, 2017, officers pursued the stolen vehicle while displaying lights and sirens. Minor evaded the officers in a high-speed chase through town, as he drove 65 miles per hour on the wrong side of the road, and ran a red light and a stop sign. The officers finally had to abandon the pursuit due to safety concerns for students near a school. On October 12, 2017, minor’s father brought minor into probation. Minor was arrested and placed in juvenile hall.

On October 13, 2017, a third violation of probation notice was filed, alleging minor failed to obey all laws and failed to obey his curfew. Minor admitted the allegations.

On November 1, 2017, the probation officer submitted an extensive dispositional social study. The officer noted that since minor had been declared a ward 17 months earlier, minor had been out of custody only about four of those months and had been arrested seven times. Minor continued to participate in events that placed the public at risk, and that risk had escalated since he became a ward. Minor had a history of running away from home and authority, and he showed a pattern of violence and a disregard for authority and law. Minor was currently being housed in the maximum security unit in juvenile hall. The officer noted that minor participated in programs at juvenile hall, but it had not translated into better behavior in the community. The officer believed minor needed a secure and structured setting to be more successful. The officer considered all options and concluded minor was not amenable to the services the probation department offered; he would instead benefit from the individualized treatment and extensive vocational training and education at DJJ. DJJ would also better address minor’s issues of impulsivity and poor decision-making, and better prepare him for adulthood than the Juvenile Commitment Facility. Thus, the officer recommended minor be committed to DJJ.

On November 16, 2017, the juvenile court held a contested dispositional hearing. The court ordered a mental health study.

On December 7, 2017, the probation officer reported that, even in light of minor’s mental health issues and treatment options, the officer continued to recommend a DJJ commitment.

On December 12, 2017, the juvenile court committed minor to DJJ for 68 months.

On January 2, 2018, minor filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

We review an order committing a minor to DJJ for abuse of discretion. (In re Carl N. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 423, 431-432; In re Asean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 473.) “ ‘We will not disturb the juvenile court’s findings when there is substantial evidence to support them. [Citation.] “ ‘In determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the commitment, we must examine the record presented at the disposition hearing in light of the purposes of the Juvenile Court Law.’ ” ’ [Citation.] ‘A trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.’ ” (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1288.)

“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.) 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.)

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, and we see no abuse of discretion in the DJJ commitment. Ample evidence supported the juvenile court’s findings that DJJ would be a probable benefit to minor and that less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective and inappropriate. The juvenile court was consistently sensitive to minor and his family and made every effort to encourage minor and promote opportunities for his success. Minor, however, repeatedly failed to comply with authority at home or at school and repeatedly committed criminal offenses, putting others at great risk. His behavior and offenses were increasing in seriousness. The court had previously tried to impress upon minor the seriousness of his commission of a robbery and the importance of his reformation. Less restrictive alternatives had been attempted, and both the home setting and juvenile hall had been unsuccessful in providing adequate structure. The juvenile court was not required to pointlessly repeat similar placements while minor’s conduct escalated in criminality. As the court recognized, minor did not appreciate the gravity or the consequences of his conduct, despite the court’s extensive efforts. At this point, there was no reason to believe minor would succeed unless he received greater supervision and structure to reform his behavior and to protect the public from him. The DJJ commitment was appropriate.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s findings and orders are affirmed.