In re George A. CA5

California Court of Appeal May 6, 2014 No. F066908Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing the minor to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) because the record demonstrated the minor's history of recidivism and the ineffectiveness of less restrictive placements.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by committing the minor to the DJJ without ordering a less restrictive alternative placement?
Was there substantial evidence to support the finding that the minor would benefit from a DJJ commitment and that less restrictive alternatives were ineffective?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A DJJ commitment is not an abuse of discretion where the evidence demonstrates a probable benefit to the minor from the commitment and less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate.”

“The record clearly shows that the juvenile court weighed and considered the probable benefits of a DJJ commitment against the ineffectiveness of less restrictive placements.”

Filed 5/6/14 In re George A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 GEORGE A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F066908

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 08CEJ600789)

v. OPINION GEORGE A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A. Kelley, Judge. Jeff Cunan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Detjen, J.

George A., a minor at the time of the underlying proceedings, appeals from a dispositional order of the Fresno County Juvenile Court committing him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).1 He contends the court abused its discretion by failing to order a less restrictive alternative placement. The claim is unfounded. George’s commitment to the DJJ followed multiple sustained juvenile petitions and probation violations, and his unsuccessful participation in other rehabilitative programs. The record clearly shows that the juvenile court weighed and considered the probable benefits of a DJJ commitment against the ineffectiveness of less restrictive placements. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the challenged order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND George’s history of delinquency dates back to September 2003 when, at eight years of age, he was cited by police for a violation of Penal Code section 459 based on his admitted participation in a burglary. In 2008, at the age of 13, George admitted to misdemeanor possession of a weapon in violation of former Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a) after threatening his teacher with some type of bat or club. He was subsequently placed in a “Level 12” group home. In 2010, George was arrested for brandishing a knife while threatening school officials. He was booked into juvenile hall and later adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The wardship petition was

In re George A. CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, F066908

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief