In re S.K. CA1/1

Filed 6/16/16 In re S.K. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A145467

Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Francisco City & County v. Super. Ct. No. JW 13-6367) S.K., Defendant and Appellant.

S.K. appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a juvenile wardship petition in the interests of justice and the welfare of the minor pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 782. He argues the trial court abused its discretion in finding he was ineligible for section 782 relief because of the nature of his underlying offense. S.K. also argues the trial court’s findings were not supported by the evidence. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In August 2013, police officers responded to a report of a robbery on a San Francisco MUNI bus. The victim reported a group of young men entered the bus around 25th Street and Connecticut Street. One of the men grabbed the victim’s cell phone from his hand. When the victim tried to recover the phone, the rest of the group punched and kicked him and stole his wallet. Based on MUNI surveillance video, several Instagram

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

photos, and witness statements, the police identified S.K. as a suspect in the robbery. According to the probation department’s dispositional report, the surveillance video did not show S.K. assisting in the attack, but did prove he was present. In October 2013, S.K. was charged by a juvenile wardship petition with first degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (a).) The petition was amended to allege defendant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim, and then amended again to strike this enhancement allegation and reduce the charge to second degree robbery. S.K. admitted to the amended petition in November 2013. At a March 2014, dispositional hearing, the juvenile court placed S.K. on home probation with various terms and conditions. On June 1, 2015, S.K. moved to dismiss the wardship petition in the interests of justice and welfare of the minor pursuant to section 782. S.K. argued section 782 relief was appropriate because he took responsibility for his actions, paid victim restitution, earned his high school diploma, and was set to graduate from the CityBuild Academy. A probation report filed the same day recommended probation be terminated as successfully completed, since S.K. had been hired with Local 510 and was about to begin apprenticeship classes. The San Francisco District Attorney (DA) opposed the motion. While the DA conceded S.K. complied with the conditions of his probation, he argued “[S.K’s] successes are not so extreme as to merit a dismissal of a violent crime such as the one [he] admitted to.” The trial court terminated probation as successfully completed, but denied S.K.’s section 782 motion. At the hearing on the matter, the court stated dismissal of the wardship petition was inappropriate since the underlying offense was listed in section 707, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 707(b)). The court explained: “[T]he legislature is quite serious in that 707(b) offenses, those 29, 30 deadly sins, are so serious, even for minors, provided they’re over 14, they’ve really limited the Court’s options.” Turning to the merits, the court also found dismissal of the wardship petition was inappropriate, stating: “The Court . . . may . . . dismiss the petition. . . . [¶] One, if the Court finds that the interest of justice and . . . the welfare of the minor requires such