In re A.C. CA1/3

Filed 7/25/13 In re A.C. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re A.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.C., A136374 Defendant and Appellant. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ12189741)

Charged with possessing Vicodin for sale, 15-year-old A.C. requested that the juvenile court grant him deferred entry of judgment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 790 et seq.1 The court denied the request and A.C. admitted to misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, he asserts the court abused its discretion when it denied his request. It did not, and we affirm. BACKGROUND A.C. was arrested at Mission San Jose High School for possessing 10 Vicodin pills to sell to another student. He admitted he previously sold a friend some prescription pills and on two prior occasions sold marijuana to other students on campus.

1 Unless otherwise noted, further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. References to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 1

Defense counsel advised the court that A.C. appeared to be eligible for deferred entry of judgment and asked the court to determine his suitability for the program. It was agreed that, as required for consideration for deferred entry of judgment, A.C. would plea to a felony violation of Health and Safety Code 11351, and the probation department would prepare a dispositional report addressing his suitability. If the Court decided against deferred entry of judgment, A.C. would be permitted to withdraw his felony admission and admit a misdemeanor violation. The probation report recommended deferred entry of judgment. It observed that A.C. admitted that he planned to sell the Vicodin pills, previously sold marijuana on campus, and had smoked marijuana on weekends since he was 13 years old. But A.C. also “has begun his community service hours at the food bank and has made sure to get to school on time. [¶] The minor has admitted to smoking marijuana approximately a month ago, but denies any other substance use as well as gang affiliation. [A.C.] has shown remorse for this incident and has taken responsibility for acting irresponsibly by taking the vicodin to school. The minor has also reported that he has long term goals and would like to graduate high school and attend Emeryville Institute for Music and Arts. The minor has a passion for music and would like to study production and engineering with the interest of becoming a music producer. [A.C.] also does not present any problems at home and follows the rules that are given by his mother. It is believed that the minor is suitable for a grant of deferred entry of judgment. It is therefore recommended . . . that the minor be granted deferred entry of judgment and be placed on formal probation in the home of his mother with supervision services to include school conditions, drug testing, curfew, WETA, and COPS Alcohol/Drug Offender class.” The court rejected the recommendation. It explained: “Sales of drugs at school is not appropriate for Deferred Entry of Judgment, and [A.C.] also indicated he had stolen the pills, the ten Vicodin pills, from a friend, and he was planning on making money off of it. He sold two marijuana joints a couple months ago. This sort of dealing behavior needs standard probation. [¶] There’s also a text on his iPhone referring to the sales transaction.” A.C.’s attorney argued that his client was a good candidate for deferred