In re A.G. CA5

California Court of Appeal Oct 7, 2021 No. F082101Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing the minor to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), as the record supported the conclusion that the minor would benefit from the commitment and that less restrictive alternatives were inappropriate.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by committing the minor to the DJJ instead of a less restrictive alternative placement?
Did the juvenile court fail to adequately consider the minor's version of the offense in its dispositional decision?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A DJJ commitment is not an abuse of discretion where the evidence demonstrates a probable benefit to the minor from the commitment and less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate.”

“The record contains evidence that less restrictive alternative placements were considered and reasonably rejected, and that minor would benefit from DJJ placement.”

Filed 10/7/21 In re A.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE , F082101

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17CEJ600227-3)

v. OPINION A.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gregory T. Fain, Judge. Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Kari Ricci Mueller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Minor, A.G., 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, minor argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the DJJ because insufficient evidence supported the court’s conclusion that no less restrictive alternative placement was suitable. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On May 19, 2020,1 the Fresno County District Attorney filed a first amended juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) alleging minor committed second degree robbery (Penal Code, § 211;2 count 1), assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2), and misdemeanor battery (§ 242; count 3). As to counts 1 and 2, the petition alleged minor committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and personally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)).3 On September 1, minor admitted the truth of count 1 and the related gang enhancement and the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) firearm enhancement. In exchange, counts 2 and 3 and the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) firearm enhancement related to count 1 were dismissed on the People’s motion. On October 7, the juvenile court held a disposition hearing at which it removed minor from the custody of his parent, adjudged him a ward of the court, and committed him to the custody of the DJJ for a period not to exceed 13 years. The court awarded him 145 days of custody credit against that maximum period of confinement.

In re A.G. CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE , F082101

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief