In re Michael Z. CA2/6

Filed 6/24/15 In re Michael Z. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B256569 (Super. Ct. No. 2010029230) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

MICHAEL Z.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Michael Z. appeals from a juvenile court order declaring him a ward of the court and committing him to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) for a maximum term of eight years and six months. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602 (section 602).) The court based the instant commitment on several sustained section 602 petitions. Appellant contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion because the evidence is insufficient to support its finding of probable benefit from the commitment to the DJF; and it unreasonably rejected alternative placements without giving them sufficient consideration. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2010, the Ventura County District Attorney filed a section 602 petition, alleging that appellant committed two assaults by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)).1 The prosecution amended the petition to add a charge of brandishing a weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)). Appellant, then age 13, admitted he brandished a knife. The juvenile court dismissed the assaults, sustained the petition, and granted him probation. Between September 2010 and January 2014, the juvenile court sustained eight petitions which collectively charged appellant with three, second degree robberies (§ 211); unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); second degree burglary (§ 459); vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)); petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)); and escape (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 871, subd. (d)). While on probation, the court placed appellant on electronic monitoring for seven terms; he successfully completed only three terms. The court also sustained three petitions alleging appellant had violated the terms of his probation. Prior to 2014, the court committed appellant to the juvenile justice facility (JJF) on several occasions for varying time periods. In April 2013, after sustaining a petition which charged appellant with robbery, the juvenile court committed him to JJF for 365 days. In September 2013, the probation department charged him with violations of probation. Appellant admitted that he started two fights with other minors in JJF. The probation department recommended that the court extend appellant's commitment to JJF for 45 days. The prosecution urged the court instead to commit appellant to the DJF because he had failed to be rehabilitated "at the local level." The court extended appellant's commitment to JJF for 45 days, after making the following statement: "Well, where I'm going is I'm not going to commit him to the [DJF] quite yet, but