In re C.C. Ca1/4

Filed 6/16/15 In re C.C. Ca1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re C.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A142378 C.C., (Solano County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. J42131)

C.C., a minor, appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 725, subdivision (a). C.C. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in declaring him a ward of the court upon the conclusion of his informal probation because there was no evidence that wardship would advance the purposes of the juvenile court law. Specifically, C.C. asserts that there was no evidence that wardship was necessary to ensure his attendance at school or that the court’s continued interference would aid in his rehabilitation. However, seeing no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s order of wardship, we affirm.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

I. BACKGROUND On April 23, 2013, C.C. attacked another minor, J.H., at a park in Dixon, California. C.C. admitted that the altercation occurred and reported that it stemmed from certain hateful and disparaging comments that J.H. made about C.C.’s Mexican ethnicity four days earlier. C.C. admitted wrongdoing, recognizing that his behavior was not acceptable. On August 7, 2013, an original wardship petition under section 602 alleged that C.C. committed three misdemeanors including battery (Pen. Code, § 242), assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and disturbing the peace by fighting (Pen. Code, § 415, subd. (1)). On October 2, 2013, C.C. admitted that he committed disturbing the peace by fighting in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and a maximum confinement of three months. On November 3, 2013, the court placed the minor on six-months informal probation without wardship under section 725, subdivision (a). The court ordered appellant to “[m]aintain acceptable grades, behavior and attendance” as one of his conditions of probation. C.C. had a history of truancy throughout 2012 and 2013. On January 6, 2014, upon C.C.’s admission, the minor was found to be a habitual truant. On April 21, 2014, although the school district indicated that his attendance had improved, C.C. was again found to be a habitual truant. On April 28, 2014, the court conducted C.C.’s section 725 review. C.C.’s probation officer, Carmen Gomez, deemed the minor’s grades and behavior acceptable, but his attendance at school unacceptable. The court was prepared to follow the recommendation of the probation department and make the minor a ward of the court. However, defense counsel objected to wardship, indicating that C.C. paid his fines in full and that his drug tests were negative. In response, the court stated: “It’s all about school.” Specifically, the juvenile court, aware of C.C.’s involvement with truancy court, thought wardship would be in the minor’s best interest as an additional incentive for him to go to school. Ultimately, the court decided to continue the matter.