In re A.L. CA1/1

Filed 12/18/15 In re A.L. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re A.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.L., A144299 Defendant and Appellant. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1401241)

After the defendant minor A.L. admitted one count of armed robbery and pleaded no contest to a gun enhancement, the juvenile court ordered placement at the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF). Defendant contends the court abused its discretion in doing so, claiming it failed to consider a less restrictive placement, specifically the Youth Offender Treatment Program (YOTP). We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion. We further conclude the court did not err in connection with imposing the maximum term of physical confinement. BACKGROUND A wardship petition charged defendant, then 16 years old, with two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) while using a firearm (id., § 12022.53, subd. (b)). He ultimately admitted count 1 and pleaded no contest to the

1

associated gun enhancement allegation. In exchange, the People dismissed the second armed robbery count. According to the police report, which served as the basis of defendant’s plea, he and a companion robbed two individuals with a loaded gun. The victims handed over $60, a cell phone, an identification card, and bank cards. One victim later identified defendant, from an in-field lineup, as the one pointing the gun. The other victim did not identify anyone from that lineup. Despite the one victim’s identification and defendant’s plea to the gun enhancement, defendant has consistently claimed he was not the one wielding the gun, but was the one who took the victims’ belongings. The probation officer’s disposition report recommended a DJF commitment, and recommended a “maximum term” of up to six years 213 days—that is, until defendant’s 23rd birthday, at which point his release from DJF would likely be required. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1769.)1 The report highlighted the seriousness of the armed robbery, defendant’s refusal to concede he had wielded the gun, his failure at probation in a prior encounter with the criminal justice system (after he had threatened to slit the throat of a middle school teacher), an assessment defendant was at moderate risk of reoffending, and the availability at DJF of specialized treatment programs. In probation’s view, these factors were not outweighed by defendant’s good grades in school, strong family environment or his professed remorse for the victims. The report, itself, did not expressly compare YOTP and DJF placements. At the disposition hearing, the probation officer testified he considered all possible placements and screened defendant for the Orin Allen Youth Facility, the “Bar-O” ranch program, YOTP and DJF. Bar-O, YOTP and DJF all considered defendant acceptable. The officer viewed Bar-O as less restrictive, followed by YOTP, and then by DJF. When