In re Edgar J. CA5

Filed 11/16/15 In re Edgar J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EDGAR J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F070588

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 12CEJ600137-2 & 12CEJ600137-2V) v.

EDGAR J., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Hillary A. Chittick, Judge. Robert McLaughlin, 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, Carlos A. Martinez and Marcia A. Fay, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.

INTRODUCTION On April 19, 2013, the juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after the court found allegations that appellant had committed forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and rape by use of drugs (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(3)) to be true. The juvenile court ordered appellant to continue on supervised probation until December 30, 2015, and committed appellant to the Juvenile Justice Campus with directions to enroll in Teen Challenge of Southern California, perform community service, and engage in psychological and substance abuse counseling. On October 27, 2014, appellant admitted to violating the terms of his probation, and the juvenile court subsequently committed appellant to the Department of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”) for a maximum period of eight years, with 567 days of credit for time served. On appeal, appellant argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing him to the DJJ. We affirm. FACTS On April 26, 2012, appellant, who was 17 years old at the time, participated with two other individuals in the rape of an intoxicated 14 year-old female. On January 15, 2013, the district attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging the commission of one count of forcible rape while acting in concert (count 1), and one count of rape by use of drugs (count 2). On April 19, 2013, following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the allegation of rape by use of drugs to be true, as well as forcible rape, a lesser included offense to count 1. Prior to the dispositional hearing on the matter, the probation department recommended appellant be committed to the DJJ due to the cruel and vicious nature of