In re Alexander R. CA2/1

Filed 5/27/16 In re Alexander R. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re ALEXANDER R., a Person Coming B266949 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VJ43362)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALEXANDER R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Kevin L. Brown, Judge. Affirmed. Holly Jackson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Rene Judkiewicz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________________________

Appellant Alexander R., a 16-year-old ward of the court, challenges the juvenile court’s order revoking his home probation and ordering him to placement in a camp. Appellant contends that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of a probation violation, and that the juvenile court abused its discretion by not selecting a disposition that would allow him to remain in his home. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW In 2013, the juvenile court adjudged Alexander, age 14, a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a)1 and placed him on home probation. Alexander lived with his mother. His father is deceased. Two of the terms of his probation were to obey all laws and orders of his probation officer, and to maintain satisfactory grades, attendance, and citizenship at school. On May 14, 2015, when Alexander was 15, the district attorney filed a notice of probation violation pursuant to section 777 alleging that Alexander had violated the terms of his probation. The notice alleged (count 1) that Alexander had failed to meet with his probation officer, (count 2) that he had frequently been absent from or tardy at school, and (count 3) that he disobeyed or was disrespectful to school officials. On June 18, 2015, Alexander’s probation officer filed an additional notice of probation violation under section 777, alleging that Alexander had missed another appointment with his probation officer and had failed to come to school to take required exams. On September 2, 2015, Alexander’s probation officer filed a third notice of violation under section 777, alleging that Alexander had missed meetings at his new school, had refused to attend school, and had made insufficient progress toward graduation. At Alexander’s probation revocation hearing on September 2, 2015, Alexander’s probation officer was the sole witness. She testified that Alexander and his mother failed to attend a meeting with her on April 27, 2015, and another on June 11. The probation