In re D.S. CA5

California Court of Appeal Oct 28, 2015 No. F071315Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing the appellant to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), as substantial evidence supported the finding that the commitment would benefit the minor and that less restrictive alternatives were ineffective or inappropriate.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in committing the appellant to the DJJ?
Was there substantial evidence to support the finding that the appellant would benefit from DJJ commitment?
Was there substantial evidence that less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The decision of the juvenile court may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion.”

“We find substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that appellant would benefit from DJJ commitment.”

“There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the juvenile court’s finding that less restrictive alternatives would be inappropriate or ineffective.”

Filed 10/28/15 In re D.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F071315

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 513455)

v. OPINION D.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Valli K. Israels, Judge. Elizabeth J. Smutz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Jennifer M. Poe, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

INTRODUCTION On November 1, 2013, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed in the juvenile court alleging that appellant D.S., then 14 years old, committed assault with a deadly weapon, a knife (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). The petition also alleged an enhancement for the personal and intentional infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). At the conclusion of a jurisdictional hearing, the court found the allegations true. Appellant was adjudged a ward of the court and was committed to 300 days in juvenile hall, with 79 days credit for time served, to be released under the terms of probation and under the supervision of a probation officer. After appellant’s third probation violation, the juvenile court committed him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum term of 84 months. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in committing appellant to the DJJ. We disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Facts Underlying Welfare and Institution Code Section 602 Petition1 On October 30, 2013, appellant visited a taco stand operated by Noe Acosta. Appellant asked Acosta for tacos and told him he would pay for them the next day. Acosta agreed and gave appellant two tacos. Appellant asked Acosta whether Acosta’s brother was a gang member, and called his brother a “scrap,” a derogatory term Norteño gang members use to describe Sureño gang members. Acosta asked appellant to leave. Appellant began yelling expletives at Acosta as he rode away on his bicycle. He later returned to the taco stand with Leonard Zuniga, a known member of the Norteños,

In re D.S. CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, F071315

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief