In re Ricardo G.
Filed 3/24/06 In re Ricardo G. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re RICARDO G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICARDO G., Defendant and Appellant. |
A109930
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 66160) |
Ricardo G. appeals his commitment to the California Youth Authority (CYA) after he was adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) based on his admission of felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) (count 1) and misdemeanor false identification to a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)) (count 3).[1] The juvenile wardship petition alleged six prior sustained petitions for purposes of disposition. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in committing him to the CYA. We disagree and affirm.
Background[2]
On March 2, 2005, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Redwood City police responded to an anonymous report that four persons were seen carrying baseball bats. Upon their arrival, the police saw three males (including defendant, then age 17) and one female in a convenience store parking lot. When the four persons saw the officers, they entered the store. Two officers entered and detained the suspects. One officer found a baseball bat lying next to defendant. A small amount of methamphetamine was found on defendant's person. At the time of his arrest, defendant gave a false name to the officers. At juvenile hall, a staff member recognized defendant and provided the police with defendant's real name. Defendant admitted to an investigating officer that he was a Norteño gang member.
The probation department report recommended that defendant continue as a ward of the court and be placed on supervised probation in San Mateo County until his 18th birthday. Proceedings were continued to determine whether the probation departments in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, where proceedings were pending, intended to seek CYA commitments. A supplementary probation report indicated that both counties' probation departments would not seek a CYA commitment.
After considering the rehabilitative services offered at the CYA, the juvenile court committed defendant to the CYA for a maximum of three years.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Discussion
Defendant argues his commitment to the CYA constituted an abuse of discretion because the evidence in the record, the arguments of counsel, and the documents submitted to this court with a request for judicial notice show that the CYA would not provide him with adequate mental health and substance abuse services.[3] We disagree.
We review a CYA commitment for abuse of discretion, and must indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the juvenile court's commitment decision. (In re Asean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 473; In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1395.) In determining whether substantial evidence supports the commitment, we review the record presented at the disposition hearing in light of the purposes of the juvenile court law (Asean D., at p. 473; Michael D., at p. 1395), which, according to Welfare and Institutions Code section 202, subdivision (a), â€
