In re R.A. CA5

Filed 8/2/21 In re R.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F082120

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20JL-00085A)

v. OPINION R.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. Candice L. Christensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and A. Kay Lauterbach, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P.J., Levy, J. and Poochigian, J.

Minor, R.A., appeals from a disposition order adjudging him a ward of the juvenile court and committing him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). On appeal, he argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the DJJ because (1) he did not qualify for the DJJ sex offender treatment program based on his level of risk for reoffending, (2) he was unlikely to benefit from DJJ placement, and (3) a less restrictive alternative placement was available. The People respond that the minor’s claims are forfeited and, in any event, are without merit. Anticipating the People’s response, minor argues that if his claims are forfeited then his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise them below. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On July 21, 2020, the Merced County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) alleging minor, at the age of 16, committed a forcible lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Penal Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1);1 count 1) and, at the age of 15, committed a forcible lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); count 2). On October 13, 2020, minor pled no contest to count 2 in exchange for dismissal of count 1. On October 27, 2020, the probation officer issued an amended report, recommending commitment to the DJJ for placement in the “Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Sex Offenders Program (CBT-SO).” On November 3, 2020, the juvenile court held a disposition hearing. At the hearing, minor’s counsel objected to the recommended DJJ placement and instead requested placement at a local long-term program or a group home. The prosecutor supported the probation officer’s recommendation. Neither party discussed minor’s “Static-99R” recidivism worksheet score, which placed him in the average risk category