Filed 11/8/21 In re J.G. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re J.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, E076478 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. RIJ2000340) v. OPINION J.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Samah Shouka, Judge.
Affirmed as modified.
Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Ksenia
Gracheva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 INTRODUCTION
Minor J.G. (minor) appeals from a juvenile court’s disposition order. He contends
the probation department failed to convene a child and family team (CFT) meeting prior
to the disposition hearing. He further argues that he was in compliance with the terms of
his home supervision, there was no evidence his mother could not provide adequate
supervision and care at home, and maintaining him on home supervision was in his best
interest; thus, the court erred in placing him at the Youth Treatment and Education Center
(YTEC). We conclude that this issue has become moot. He additionally claims that his
probation term prohibiting tobacco use is invalid and should be stricken. The People
concede, and we agree, that the probation condition should be stricken. Otherwise, we
affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2020, minor, who was 17 years old, took his mother’s truck without
permission and drove his younger brother and several friends to the river to go
swimming. He did not have a driver’s license. He drank beer and smoked marijuana.
When they left the river, minor backed up and hit a car. He became scared and
accelerated onto the highway to get away and then collided with another car. Minor kept
driving at a high rate of speed, approximately 80 to 90 miles an hour, and lost control of
the truck when he approached a curve. His truck hit the side of a mountain and rolled
twice. One of his passengers was ejected from the side window, suffered a spinal injury,
and is now paralyzed. The passenger in the front seat died as a result of the collision.
2 Minor was arrested and consented to a blood test. He had a blood-alcohol content of
0.093 percent.
On May 19, 2020, the San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a Welfare
and Institutions Code1 section 602 petition alleging that minor committed gross vehicular
manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)(1), count 1), driving under
the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a), counts 2-4), and
hit and run driving (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a), count 5). Minor admitted counts 1
and 4, and the court dismissed the remaining counts. He was released on house arrest.
On June 29, 2020, the matter was transferred to Riverside County, which was
minor’s place of residence. Minor’s counsel requested the matter to be referred to the
probation department for a disposition memorandum discussing options for services for
him to participate in, and the People agreed. The court set a hearing for July 28, 2020,
and released minor on home supervision on specified terms pending the hearing.
The court held a disposition hearing on July 28, 2020, and continued the matter for
three weeks for the probation department to complete the disposition report.
The probation department filed a disposition report on August 6, 2020. The
probation officer interviewed minor, and minor admitted that he took the keys to his
mother’s truck after she left home, he did not have a license, and he knew he was not
allowed to drive without one. He said he just wanted to hang out with his friends and
drink beer. He admitted to driving without a license on multiple occasions but stated he
1 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. 3 does not drive without his mother in the car. Minor said he was not trying to flee the
scene of the collision(s) but was scared of what would happen to him. He admitted his
friends were telling him to stop. When asked what he would say to the victims, he said
he would apologize and ask if they would speak to the court to give him another chance.
The probation officer noted that minor did not appear to show remorse for his actions and
instead seemed more concerned about what would happen to him. At the scene of the
accident, he was heard saying “I don’t have a driver’s license” and begged everyone not
to call the police. The probation officer was extremely concerned about minor’s blatant
disregard for the safety of his passengers and the others involved in the accidents. The
probation officer further reported that minor said he began drinking alcohol at the age of
15 and drank beer about once or twice a week.
The probation officer also interviewed minor’s mother (mother). She said she left
home on the day of the incident, and when she returned in the afternoon, she noticed the
truck and keys missing. She did not call the police but attempted to text her sons.
Mother had only had the truck for three days and believed her son was test driving it.
She also said he was influenced by his friends to take it and drive to the river. Mother
said she wanted the case to be dismissed and promised that minor “would never do this
again.” The probation department made multiple attempts to conduct a follow-up
telephone interview, but mother did not make herself available. The probation report
further stated that mother claimed minor was always home being supervised; however, he
was clearly not supervised on the day of the incident. Moreover, according to minor,
4 mother allowed him to drive on multiple occasions with her in the car, knowing he did
not have a license.
The probation officer further reported that on July 9, 2020, minor’s case was
screened before the Interagency Placement Screening Committee. His treatment needs
were identified as individual and family counseling, drug treatment, victim awareness,
and school credit recovery. The committee believed placement in a secured facility such
as YTEC was warranted, for the safety of minor and the community. The committee also
recommended that based on his poor moral choices and the trauma he would likely suffer
due to the consequences of his actions, minor should be ordered to complete moral
reconation therapy2 and a trauma-centered treatment program at YTEC.
In sum, the probation department believed minor was in need of a high level of
supervision to assist him in his rehabilitation and treatment needs. He posed a serious
danger to himself and others. Thus, for his safety and the safety of others, the probation
department recommended minor be declared a ward and committed to YTEC under
specified conditions. YTEC would provide him with education and counseling, as well
as structured supervision and accountability.
2 In another part of the record, it is referred to as moral recognition therapy. “MRT [Moral Reconation Therapy] is a cognitive-behavioral treatment system that leads to enhanced moral reasoning, better decision making, and more appropriate behavior.” 5 At a hearing on August 11, 2020, minor’s counsel objected to the probation
officer’s report since minor was interviewed without her present. She thus asked for the
court to strike the disposition report and order a new one, with different officers writing
the report. The court ordered that probation write a new disposition report without asking
minor about the underlying offenses. The court ordered that minor continue on home
supervision while awaiting the disposition order.
The probation department submitted another report on September 8, 2020. The
probation officer reported that according to school records, minor had a 1.08 cumulative
grade point average in high school. He was interviewed on August 20, 2020, with his
counsel present, and waived his Miranda3 rights. Minor stated this incident was not “all
his fault” and that he did not plan for this to happen.
Mother was also interviewed on August 20, 2020, and she said she was sad for the
mother who lost her son and for the minor who was paralyzed; she wanted to ask for
forgiveness and hoped the parents would forgive her son, as “this was an error on all the
boys since they all pitched in for alcohol.” Mother said minor was a “good boy” who
was obedient and followed the rules of the home. Initially, she denied that minor had
previously been pulled over for driving without a license and said he had never received a
ticket. However, when confronted with information otherwise, she changed her mind and
said he had been pulled over, but she was unsure of how many times. She admitted that,
in March 2020, a police officer called her regarding minor driving without a license. The
3 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. 6 probation officer asked if she allowed minor to drive her cars, she said “yes,” but said
that was her error. When asked about minor’s substance abuse, she said he only drank
with his friends, and she was unaware of his use of marijuana. She then retracted her
statement and said minor did not drink. The probation officer asked what consequences
minor received for the current incident, and she said he was expected to continue doing
his chores. The probation officer further noted that mother said she was aware minor did
not have a driver’s license, and said she “never” let him drive in the past.
The probation report also repeated the analysis and recommendation from the
Interagency Screening Committee that minor should be placed at YTEC.
The matter was continued several times, and minor was maintained on home
supervision.
The probation department filed a home supervision report on October 22, 2020,
and reported that mother admitted she transports herself and minor, even though she does
not have a driver’s license. The probation officer told her that minor should only be
driven by someone with a valid driver’s license.
On October 21, 2020, counsel for minor filed an informational memorandum,
contending that minor had demonstrated during his time on home supervision that he was
not a danger to himself or society, and that committing him to a locked facility like
YTEC was not in his best interests since there were programs available in the
community. The memorandum outlined alternative options, including services offered by
the California mentor program, the teen education mentoring program option (TEMPO),
Riverside University Health System Behavioral Health, Alcoholics Anonymous 7 meetings, the Riverside County Probation Department Victim Awareness Program, and
credit recovery.
On December 29, 2020, the Riverside County District Attorney filed a contested
disposition hearing brief. The brief stated that the best option for minor to receive the
care, treatment, and guidance that was consistent with his best interest, and to ensure
public safety, was for him to be placed at YTEC. YTEC would allow him to be held
accountable for his actions and was the most appropriate for his circumstances. The brief
noted that minor being out of custody posed a major safety risk since his mother was
aware that he was driving without a license at the time of the incident, and she did not
think much of it, since she also drove without a license. Furthermore, there was a two-
week period noted in a home supervision report where it was unclear whether minor was
staying with his aunt or his grandfather; thus, it appeared he was often left unsupervised
by mother. Moreover, it appeared that mother did not want him to be held accountable
for his actions in this case, as she requested all allegations to be dismissed. YTEC would
provide a structured environment where minor would not be able to drink alcohol or drive
without a license.
The court held a contested disposition hearing on January 25, 2021. The court
noted that it read minor’s informational memorandum, the People’s disposition brief, and
the probation department’s report filed on September 8, 2020. The People called as a
witness Shanda Hills, the probation officer who conducted minor’s interview and
prepared the September 8, 2020 report. She said minor denied both alcohol and
marijuana use. She said she interviewed mother, and mother was unaware of minor’s 8 grades, GPA, or credits earned and said he was generally doing well. Hills testified that
mother was not holding minor accountable for his actions in this case, since she requested
the matter be dismissed and only punished him by having him continue to do his chores.
Hill testified that mother was evasive during the interview, as she changed her story
multiple times concerning whether she knew minor took her truck on the day of the
incident, her knowledge of him being pulled over for driving without a license, and her
knowledge of him drinking alcohol. She opined that mother minimized minor’s conduct
in this case. Because of mother’s evasiveness, Hill was concerned about her
trustworthiness and willingness to cooperate with the probation department in the future.
Considering minor’s safety and the safety of the community, and because of the intensive
services offered and the structured supervision, Hills recommended placement at YTEC.
Tricia Chadwick, a senior probation officer, also testified. She chaired the
Interagency Placement Screening Committee, which consisted of her, a behavioral health
representative, a supervising probation officer, a public health nurse, a school
representative, and a YTEC representative. She explained that the process for
recommending placements included a probation officer submitting a packet prior to a
meeting of the committee, and the officer presenting the case to the committee. The
presentation entailed going through the youth’s social history, discussing the reason the
youth was before the court, and noting concerns regarding him and his family. The two
voting members on the committee were herself and the behavioral health representative.
After discussing the case, they would both make their recommendations, and if they
agreed, that was the end of the process; if they disagreed, then the supervising probation 9 officer would make a recommendation. Chadwick testified that minor’s case was
screened on July 9, 2020, and there was a consensus as to placement at YTEC. The
factors that stood out were the facts of the case, the serious nature of it, and the facts that
someone was severely injured, and someone lost their life. Chadwick testified that the
programs at YTEC were much more intensive and longer in duration than the out-of-
custody California mentor program, TEMPO Program, and victim awareness program.
She further testified that she could not think of any program equivalent to the moral
reconation therapy program at YTEC. She opined that YTEC’s biggest strengths were
structure and accountability since all issues were addressed at the same location, with the
same therapists on the treatment team; as such, the team could get a sense of whether the
youth was being consistent in the different programs. Chadwick said the committee had
concerns about mother’s ability to effectively supervise minor on home supervision. She
further said the committee believed YTEC would benefit minor by ensuring all his needs
were addressed intensely in a short period of time (six months), so that he would not
reoffend.
Dwayne George, a Behavioral Health Services Supervisor for Riverside County
University Health System, also testified. He worked at YTEC and testified concerning
various programs offered there, including the substance abuse counseling program and
moral reconation therapy program. He opined that minor was suitable for the programs
he outlined.
10 In addition, mother testified at the hearing. She admitted that on January 17, 2020,
minor received a citation for driving without a license, speeding, and not having proof of
insurance. She was aware that minor did not have a license but let him take her car that
day to go and get a cup of coffee. She testified that she did not really approve of him
borrowing her car but said “there are circumstances that I have to.” As an example, she
cited the day he went to get a cup of coffee and was pulled over. Mother said she was
aware that driving without a license was illegal, and that her son knew that as well. She
also said she did not have a driver’s license, but was in the process of getting one.
Mother said she gave minor permission to borrow her car about three other times.
However, on the day of the current incident (the fourth time), he took the car without her
permission. She went to work that day and specifically told him to stay home, but he did
not. When asked how often she left him unsupervised, she said he was never alone since
either she or her sisters took care of him. However, she admitted he was left alone that
day. Mother said she was not aware that minor drank alcohol or used any drugs, and did
not know until she was told on the day of the incident.
The probation officer who assisted minor with his home supervision also testified.
He said minor was required to be with an approved adult at all times. However, at some
point in July, one of the probation officers found out minor was staying at his
grandfather’s house “now and then.” He did not get approval to stay there and violated
the terms of his home supervision contract by not reporting it. However, the probation
department decided instead of finding him in violation, they would work with the family.
The officer further testified that on September 29, 2020, mother admitted to transporting 11 minor to appointments and errands without a driver’s license. The officer opined that this
behavior set a poor example.
During closing arguments, minor’s counsel argued for minor to stay on home
supervision since removing him from his home would disrupt the services he was already
participating in. She argued that there was no child and family team meeting conducted
in preparation for a disposition. The People argued the case came down to supervision
and accountability and that YTEC was the best place for that to occur.
The court issued its decision with a review of the facts of the case and a thorough
analysis of the parties’ positions. It noted that minor admitted to drinking since the age
of 15, and that placing him in the community programs proposed by his counsel would be
appropriate for a minor who was drinking beer twice a week at the age of 15, smoking
marijuana, driving without a license, driving under the influence, and fleeing from the
scene of an accident. However, the consequences could not be the same for someone
who did all these things and killed a person and seriously injured another. The court
found by clear and convincing evidence that minor should be removed from mother’s
custody and placed at YTEC because mother was incapable of providing proper
maintenance, training and education for her son, and minimized his behavior. The court
did not believe mother had only known him to drive her car four times. It noted the
victim’s sister said minor regularly picked up her brother, and she saw him driving on
multiple occasions. The court added that the best place for minor was YTEC since he
needed the intensive services provided by the same team, 24 hours a day, where they
could monitor everything he did, and he would have no distractions. Moreover, the court 12 found that continuance in the home was contrary to minor’s welfare since mother failed
to hold him fully accountable for his actions and failed to provide the structure and
accountability he needed to care less about himself and more about the welfare of others.
The court confirmed that minor’s counsel went over the terms of the disposition with
him. The court adjudged minor a ward of the court, placed his custody and control with
the Riverside County Chief Probation Officer, and committed him to YTEC.
DISCUSSION
I. Minor’s Claim that the Court Erred in Placing Him at YTEC Has Become Moot
In his appellate brief, minor argues the court’s placement order should be reversed,
and he should continue on home supervision. He specifically contends that under section
706.6, the probation department was required to, but did not, convene a CFT meeting
prior to the disposition hearing, and it did not ascertain if there were other relatives who
could provide supervision. He also contends that substantial evidence does not support
the court’s placement findings, since he was in compliance with the terms of his home
supervision, there was no evidence his mother could not provide adequate supervision,
and remaining on home supervision was in his best interest. However, at oral argument,
minor’s counsel represented to the court that minor has now completed his placement
term at YTEC. Therefore, the challenge to the dispositional order has become moot.
“As a general rule, an appellate court only decides actual controversies. It is not
the function of the appellate court to render opinions ‘ “ ‘ “upon moot questions or
abstract propositions, or . . . declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the
matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” ’ [Citation.] ‘[A] case becomes moot when a 13 court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective
relief.’ ” (People v. Rish (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1380.) That is the case here.
Since minor has completed his YTEC term, this court cannot change, modify, or order
the trial court to review minor’s placement at YTEC with a view toward a different
dispositional placement order as minor seeks in this appeal. Thus, his claim has become
moot.
II. The Probation Condition Prohibiting Minor from Using or Possession Tobacco
Should Be Stricken
As one of the probation conditions, the court ordered that minor “not knowingly
use or possess tobacco or any tobacco product(s)” (the tobacco condition). He now
argues this condition is invalid under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) and
must be stricken since the law no longer holds minors criminally liable for using tobacco.
The People agree.
A juvenile court may impose on a minor on probation “any and all reasonable
conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done
and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced.” (§ 730, subd. (b).) In
Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d 481, the California Supreme Court articulated the following test to
determine whether a probation condition constitutes an abuse of discretion: “A condition
of probation will not be held invalid unless it ‘(1) has no relationship to the crime of
which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal,
and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future
criminality.’ ” (Id. at p. 486.) “This test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be 14 satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.” (People v. Olguin
(2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379.) The Lent test applies to juvenile probation conditions. (In
re P.O. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288, 294.)
Minor admitted the allegations of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated
and driving under the influence of alcohol, causing injury. The tobacco condition has no
relationship to these crimes. Furthermore, it relates to conduct that is not criminal. The
law no longer holds minors criminally liable for possessing tobacco. Former Penal Code
section 308, subdivision (b), authorized a fine of $75 or community services for persons
under 18 who bought or possessed tobacco.4 (Former § 308, subd. (b).) However, that
provision now punishes merchants selling tobacco for failing to post a notice stating that
selling tobacco products to anyone under 21 years of age is illegal and subject to
penalties. (Pen. Code, § 308, subd. (b).) Finally, tobacco possession or use is not
reasonably related to future criminality. Accordingly, as the People concede, this
probation condition should be stricken.
4 We note that minor turned 18 on February 28, 2021. 15 DISPOSITION
We direct the juvenile court to strike the probation condition stating that minor
“not knowingly use or possess tobacco or any tobacco product(s).” In all other respects,
we affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
McKINSTER J.