Opinion
A151777
03-15-2018
In re D.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.C., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J43423)
Appellant D.C. (appellant), born May 2001, contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the Challenge Academy, a program within the Solano County juvenile hall. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In a prior proceeding, appellant was declared a ward of the court following his admission to a February 2016 robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). Appellant and another person robbed a 14-year old who was walking down the street by putting an object against the victim's back that felt like a gun and threatening his life. The juvenile court placed appellant on probation in his grandmother's home. Appellant completed the requirements of the Daily Reporting Center program, but tested positive for "an alarming level" of marijuana in his system. Appellant also had "unsatisfactory" "attendance, grades and behavior" at school.
In February 2017, the San Francisco County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) alleging that appellant committed two felonies, second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459) and grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). The charges were based on a December 27, 2016, incident during which San Francisco police officers observed appellant and others break a window of a vehicle and steal luggage. Appellant was cited and released to his guardian.
In April 2017, another juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging a new felony count of second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459) and a misdemeanor count of possession of burglar tools (Pen. Code, § 466). The charges were based on an April 18 incident during which San Francisco police officers observed appellant and others break a car window and steal backpacks and a laptop bag. Appellant had a "window punch" in his jacket pocket. The February petition was still pending at the time of the April offenses.
In May 2017, appellant admitted to misdemeanor vehicle burglary on the February 2017 petition and to felony vehicle burglary on the April 2017 petition. The matter was transferred to Solano County, appellant's county of residence, for disposition.
The probation officer's report recommended appellant be placed in the Challenge Academy, a program within Solano County juvenile hall. The probation officer explained, "To date and after a year of supervision, [appellant] has demonstrated a blatant disregard for school rules, Probation directives, and the Court's orders. The undersigned is concerned [appellant] is associating with older exploitive peers and has twice now in the past six months engaged with peers who committed vehicle thefts in San Francisco." The probation officer also observed that "[c]ommunity based treatment," including "intensive supervision services" had "very little to no impact on [appellant], as he has continued to engage in criminal behaviors." The report also warned, "Without a more serious intervention, [appellant] is on a path to fail high school . . . ."
At the dispositional hearing, the probation officer re-affirmed the Challenge Academy recommendation and stated that the program lasts for a minimum of nine months. She acknowledged that appellant had a substance abuse problem and that there are two community-based substance abuse programs that could have been made available to appellant.
In June 2017, the juvenile court continued appellant as a ward of the court and committed him to the juvenile hall's Challenge Academy program.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
"We review the [juvenile] court's placement decision for an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] We review the court's findings for substantial evidence, and ' "[a] trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence." ' " (In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154.) In reviewing the court's decision, we are mindful of the twofold purposes of the juvenile delinquency laws: "(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.' " (In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 614-615.)
Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing him to the Challenge Academy rather than monitoring him in the community with a requirement that he participate in a substance abuse program. He emphasizes evidence in the record that he consumed extremely large quantities of marijuana and that substance abuse treatment is not part of the Challenge Academy program. In selecting its disposition, the juvenile court reasoned, "[t]he [Challenge Academy] is a program that [appellant] desperately needs. It's not punishment but a structured program of education and behavioral modification, as I understand, in a drug-free environment." Regarding the lack of substance abuse treatment, the juvenile court observed, "I don't see that [the probation officer] is describing the drug use as being the primary driver of this criminality. Nowhere in the probation report is proof like that."
Appellant points to nothing in the record that rebuts the juvenile court's observations and supports appellant's contention that the juvenile court was obligated to ensure substance abuse treatment would be available in appellant's placement. The record supports an inference that appellant would benefit from a sober, secure environment that removes him from the negative influences in the community. Appellant points to nothing showing his abuse of marijuana was the underlying cause of his lawbreaking. Based on appellant's record of repeated criminality while under community supervision, the juvenile court could reasonably find a secure environment was necessary to meet "the dual concerns of the best interests of the minor and public protection." (In re Jimmy P. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1679, 1684.)
The case appellant relies upon, In re Aline D. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 557, is inapposite. There, the juvenile court committed a "marginally delinquent" minor to the California Youth Authority (CYA) over the advice of mental health professionals. (Id. at pp. 559, 561, 567.) The Supreme Court reversed the commitment because the record showed the placement was "solely because there appeared to be no other available placement facility." (Id. at p. 559.) The court cautioned, "a CYA commitment may not be made for the sole reason that suitable alternatives do not exist." (Id. at p. 562.) In the present case, appellant was placed in the Challenge Academy because the juvenile court found a community placement would be inappropriate and a secure placement would benefit appellant while protecting the community. (See In re M.S. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1255 [distinguishing Aline D. and stating, "this is not a case in which the court finds a DJJ commitment inappropriate, but orders it anyway due to the absence of any local less restrictive alternative"].) The juvenile court did not err.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.
/s/_________
SIMONS, J. We concur. /s/_________
JONES, P.J. /s/_________
BRUINIERS, J.