In re C.T. CA5

California Court of Appeal Mar 16, 2022 No. F083115Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court vacated the juvenile's disposition order and remanded for further proceedings because the record lacked evidence that the court considered whether a DJF commitment would provide a probable benefit to the minor or whether less restrictive alternatives were appropriate.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by committing the minor to the DJF without evidence of probable benefit?
Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by failing to consider less restrictive alternative placements?

Disposition. vacated and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A juvenile court must consider the particular minor’s needs against the programs and services actually available at DJF in order to determine whether DJF placement would be of probable benefit.”

“The absence of evidence of consideration of alternative placements also requires that the disposition be vacated.”

Filed 3/16/22 In re C.T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F083115

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21JL-00040-A)

v. OPINION C.T.,

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, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Christina Hitomi Simpson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Levy, J. and DeSantos, J. † Judge Ruben A. Villalobos of Stanislaus County presided over the jurisdiction hearing. Judge Mark V. Bacciarini of Merced County presided over the disposition hearing.

Minor, C.T., 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 Facilities (DJF).1 On appeal, minor argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the DJF because insufficient evidence supported the court’s conclusions that defendant would probably benefit from a DJF placement and that no less restrictive alternative placement was suitable. The People disagree. We vacate the disposition and remand for further proceedings. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On January 15, 2021,2 the Stanislaus County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a))3 alleging minor committed attempted murder without premeditation (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 1), assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2), possession of a concealable firearm (Pen. Code, § 29610; count 3), and misdemeanor possession of live ammunition by a minor (Pen. Code, § 29650; count 4). As to count 1, the petition further

In re C.T. CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, F083115

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief