In re Alejandro v. CA5

Filed 8/20/14 In re Alejandro V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ALEJANDRO V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F067907

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJD065740)

v. OPINION ALEJANDRO V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juliet L. Boccone, Judge. Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Chittick, J.† † Judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

The court continued appellant, Alejandro V., as a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after appellant admitted allegations charging him with public intoxication (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f))1 and violating his probation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777). On appeal, appellant contends the court abused its discretion when it committed him to the Tulare County Youth Facility (youth facility). We affirm. FACTS On December 5, 2011, then 15-year-old appellant admitted allegations charging him with possession of a knife on school grounds (§ 626.10, subd. (a)). During a probation department interview on December 11, 2011, appellant admitted he did not like school, was behind academically, and that he last attended school in March 2011. Additionally, appellant’s grandmother reported that his mother had been in and out of jail the majority of her children’s lives and was currently involved in a relationship with a man who had just been released from prison. Appellant’s grandmother moved in with appellant and his four siblings on November 6, 2011, because appellant’s mother was incarcerated on that date on a charge of possession of a controlled substance for which she was subsequently sentenced to a two-year prison term. On January 9, 2012, the court placed appellant on probation with certain terms and conditions, including that he attend school regularly, abstain from the use of alcohol and drugs, participate in alcohol and drug abuse counseling, participate in anger management and family counseling, and abide by a 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. curfew. On April 20, 2012, appellant and a confederate approached two victims, demanded they empty their pockets, and asked for money or drugs. Appellant also asked the victims if they were gang members. When they replied they were not, appellant stated he belonged to the northern gang. When appellant struck one of the victims in the head, a