In re C.E. CA3

Filed 7/29/15 In re C.E. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re C. E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C077544 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV134638)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C. E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A petition filed December 26, 2012, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602 alleged that C. E., the minor, committed second degree burglary. The minor admitted a reasonably related allegation of misdemeanor theft. The court ordered the minor placed on probation subject to certain conditions, including obeying reasonable

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

directives of parent, and prohibitions from being away from home overnight without permission, from being away from home for more than 48 hours without permission of the probation officer, and going beyond 10 miles from home without the presence of an approved responsible adult. The minor violated probation several times. The first time, she was adjudged a ward of the court and each time, probation was revoked and reinstated. Eventually, the court ordered the minor placed in a “Level A” placement. A petition filed July 17, 2014, pursuant to section 777, alleged the minor violated probation by remaining away from her placement for over a month without permission. The minor admitted the allegation. The court revoked and reinstated probation with the added condition that the minor be placed in a “Level B” placement, an out-of-state residential treatment program. The minor appeals. She contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing her to an out-of-state placement. In the alternative, she contends that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the out-of-state placement. We affirm. FACTS On December 22, 2012, the minor and an accomplice stole a pair of boots from a department store. The accomplice removed the price tag and the minor put the boots on her feet. Outside the store, they were caught by a loss prevention officer and gave false names to him as well as to a deputy sheriff. The minor reported that she followed the rules of the house in which she lived with her mother and other relatives, did chores, and obeyed curfew. She also claimed that her mother-approved friends were good influences and denied associating with gang members. The minor admitted having smoked marijuana but not since August or September 2012 and denied the use of other drugs or alcohol. The minor stated that she was in good physical and mental health. The minor admitted that she had several unexcused absences at the beginning of the school year. She also reportedly had several