Filed 8/20/26 In re R.C. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
In re R.C., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B344688 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 2024005922)
(Ventura County)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
R.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
R.C. appeals from the juvenile court judgment adjudicating him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 602, subd. (a)) after it sustained allegations of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)), with personal firearm use
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
and criminal street gang enhancements (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The court ordered R.C. committed to a secure youth treatment facility (SYTF) with a baseline of three years and a maximum term of 17 years. (§ 875, subd. (a).)
R.C. contends substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding that a less restrictive alternative disposition was unsuitable. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 Case No. 2022006792
In 2022, when R.C. was 14 years old, he admitted section 602 petition allegations that he carried a loaded, unregistered firearm in public (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(6)), and was a minor in possession of a concealable firearm (Pen. Code, § 29610). The juvenile court declared the offenses to be felonies and placed R.C. on probation without wardship for a maximum period of six months. (§ 725, subd. (a).) The terms included 20 hours community service, participation in treatment programs, and prohibited possession of any firearm, ammunition, or gang-related items.
R.C. unsuccessfully completed the terms of probation and was placed on deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) for up to 36 months. (§ 790 et seq.) The terms included participation in treatment programs including anger management and gang intervention services. He was prohibited from possessing gang- related items. DEJ was later terminated as unsuccessful based on the conduct in case No. 2024001883, described below.
Case No. 2024001883
On January 20, 2024, when R.C. was 16, police observed
2 Because R.C. admitted the charges, the facts are taken from the probation reports.
3
him picking evidence off the ground at the scene of a shooting. R.C. was in possession of an unspent round of the same type and brand as that used in the shooting. He was housed at the juvenile facility (JF).
R.C. admitted a petition alleging felony possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1)). The juvenile court declared R.C. a ward in case No. 2022006792 and placed him in the JF for 120 days, to be followed by 30 days’ electronic monitoring.
Case No. 2024005922
Police linked R.C. to the January 20 shooting. The investigation established that R.C. saw rival gang members “tagging” a wall with gang graffiti in his gang’s territory. He fired approximately nine rounds at the rival gang members, with several striking their vehicle. One bullet entered the vehicle.
R.C. sent pictures of himself holding a semiautomatic handgun, flashing a gang sign, and holding an unspent round of ammunition. He requested a fellow gang member provide him with additional ammunition. A semiautomatic handgun and an unspent round of ammunition were found in his bedroom.
A subsequent petition was filed. R.C. admitted an allegation of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)) and admitted personal firearm and criminal street gang enhancements (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
JF conduct
While in custody at the JF, R.C. committed 31 disciplinary violations, including five incidents of causing a disturbance, 18 incidents of possessing contraband (including three with “gang glorification”), and participating in 10 fights. In three of these
4
fights, he was the aggressor. One incident seriously injured a staff member.
R.C. admitted his fights at JF violated his probation in case No. 2022006792 (§ 777).
Disposition
The juvenile court stated it had read the probation report.
The court concluded: “And having reviewed all of the evidence and taking into consideration the appropriate factors which are to be considered in . . . W & I Code Section 875, I do reach the conclusion that a commitment to a less restrictive alternative disposition is unsuitable and that a commitment to SYTF . . . is needed to meet the treatment and security needs of the ward.” The court committed R.C. to an SYTF for a baseline of three years and a maximum term of 17 years.
DISCUSSION
“ ‘ “We review the [juvenile] court’s placement decision for an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] We review the court’s findings for substantial evidence, and ‘ “[a] trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.” ’ ” ’ ” (In re A.M. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 440, 448.) “ ‘We will not disturb the juvenile court’s findings when there is substantial evidence to support them.’ ” (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1288.)
“ ‘ “ ‘ “In determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the commitment, we must examine the record presented at the disposition hearing in light of the purposes of the Juvenile Court Law,” ’ ” ’ ” which includes “ ‘ ‘the protection and safety of the public” ’ ” and “ ‘ “rehabilitative objectives.” ’ ” (In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154–1155; see § 202, subds. (a) & (b).)
5
“[T]he commitment of juvenile wards to the [SYTFs] . . .
have replaced the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) as the most restrictive placement alternative.” (In re Tony R. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 395, 406.) A juvenile court may commit a ward to an SYTF if the following criteria are met: “(1) The juvenile is adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 that was committed when the juvenile was 14 years of age or older. [¶] (2) The adjudication described in paragraph (1) is the most recent offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated. [¶] (3) The court has made a finding on the record that a less restrictive, alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable.” (§ 875, subd. (a)(1)–(3).)
At issue here is the third criterion. To determine whether a less restrictive alternative disposition is unsuitable, “the court shall consider all relevant and material evidence, including the recommendations of counsel, [and] the probation department.” (§ 875, subd. (a)(3).) The probation report here and the prosecutor recommended SYTF. R.C.’s counsel requested a JF commitment.
“The court shall additionally make its [SYTF]
determination based on all of the following criteria: [¶] (A) The severity of the offense or offenses for which the ward has been most recently adjudicated, including the ward’s role in the offense, the ward’s behavior, and harm done to victims. [¶] (B) The ward’s previous delinquent history, including the adequacy and success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the ward. [¶] (C) Whether the programming, treatment, and education offered and provided in a secure youth treatment facility is appropriate to meet the treatment and
6
security needs of the ward. [¶] (D) Whether the goals of rehabilitation and community safety can be met by assigning the ward to an alternative, less restrictive disposition that is available to the court. [¶] (E) The ward’s age, developmental maturity, mental and emotional health, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and any disabilities or special needs affecting the safety or suitability of committing the ward to a term of confinement in a secure youth treatment facility.” (§ 875, subd. (a)(3).)
As discussed below, substantial evidence here supports these criteria and commitment to an SYTF.
(A) Severity of the offense Counsel does not dispute that the most recent offense was serious and dangerous. R.C. shot approximately nine times at members of a rival gang in response to their “tagging” a wall. Although none were injured, the bullets hit their vehicle. The conduct demonstrated R.C.’s willingness to use deadly force to enforce gang territories.
(B) Delinquent history and rehabilitative attempts R.C. was previously placed on probation without wardship for carrying a concealable loaded firearm in public not registered to him. (§ 725, subd. (a); Pen. Code, §§ 25850, subd. (c)(6), 29610.) He unsuccessfully completed probation and was on DEJ (§ 790 et seq.) when he committed the current shooting. R.C.’s delinquent history is evidence that previous rehabilitative efforts were ineffective to prevent him from committing weapons offenses.
And while in custody, R.C. committed 31 disciplinary violations, including possessing gang contraband and participating in 10 fights. In one gang-related incident, R.C. and
7
several others attempted to charge into the opposite side of the unit to attack other residents. In another incident, R.C. and three other residents physically attacked one other resident. In one attack, a staff member was seriously injured. These violations are substantial evidence of the inadequacy of a JF placement to rehabilitate the minor.
The probation report noted that for the preceding two months, R.C. had an “excellence” rating at the JF, which is the highest level of behavior. He had previously been at that level intermittently between disciplinary incidents. But these periods of compliance did not preclude an SYTF commitment. (See In re A.M., supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at pp. 444, 451.)
(C) SYTF programming
In its “ ‘ initial showing required to support [an SYTF]
commitment,’ . . . ‘the probation department, in its report or testimony, [should] identify those programs at the [SYTF] likely to be of benefit to the minor under consideration. Where a minor has particular needs, the probation department should also include brief descriptions of the relevant programs to address those needs.’ [Citation.] However, ‘the probation department is not required in its report and initial testimony to provide in[-] depth information about the [SYTF’s] programs. . . . If a minor wishes to dispute the availability or efficacy of particular programs, or to suggest that other conditions at the DJF undermine the programs, the minor must present sufficient evidence to reasonably bring into question the benefit he or she will receive from the adoption of the probation department’s recommendation.’ ” (In re A.M., supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 450, italics omitted.)
The probation report here identified SYTF programs it
8
found appropriate. It described 13 SYTF programs and three enrichment programs that addressed areas including: independent living skills; preparing for future employment, housing, and education; healthy boundaries, diversity, and respect; violence prevention; religious counseling; and construction trade training. The latter was particularly appropriate based on R.C.’s desire to attend a trade school. The report also described behavioral health programs at SYTF, including Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT), which “is designed to alter how clients think and make judgments about what is right and wrong” through “education, group counseling, and structured exercises.”3 Also included was evidence-based substance abuse treatment. That treatment was appropriate for R.C. because he had a history of alcohol, marijuana, and Xanax use, and admitted he was intoxicated when he committed the shooting. This case is thus unlike In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, upon which R.C. relies, where the probation report failed to identify or describe programs at the Division of Juvenile Facilities likely to benefit the minor. (Id. at p. 4.)
The probation report also noted two other benefits of an SYTF commitment. First, SYTF requires court review hearings
3 The probation report stated that MRT uses “a cognitivebehavioral approach . . . . Moral reasoning is how people make decisions about what they should or should not do in a given situation. Youth are confronted with the consequences of their behavior and the effects it has on their family, friends, and community. . . . Twelve steps are completed during weekly meetings.” (See McGarvey, Juvenile Justice and Mental Health: Innovation in the Laboratory of Human Behavior (2012) 53 Jurimetrics J. 97, 108.)
9
at least every six months to evaluate the minor’s progress in the programs provided. (§ 875, subd. (e)(1)(A).) Second, it allows the court to retain jurisdiction over R.C. until age 25. (§ 607, subd. (c); see Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b).)
R.C. contends that the SYTF programs did not specifically address gang renunciation. But he forfeited that purported deficiency by failing to present evidence in the trial court “ ‘to dispute the availability or efficacy of particular programs.’ ” (In re A.M., supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 450.)
The probation report concluded an SYTF commitment was “both necessary and justified. A prolonged commitment serves the interests of public safety, while holding the youth accountable for his actions and also providing him with the treatment and rehabilitation needed to address the root causes of his behavior.” Substantial evidence supports this criterion.
(D) Alternative dispositions Substantial evidence also supports the criterion that “an alternative, less restrictive disposition” was not available to meet “the goals of rehabilitation and community safety.” (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(D).)
The court properly considered R.C.’s failure to succeed in the less restrictive dispositions previously imposed: probation without wardship, DEJ, and approximately one year in the JF. (In re A.R. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1081–1082.) The probation report listed JF programs in which R.C. had participated, but concluded “his behavior has presented ongoing safety and security concerns.” For example, while at JF, R.C. possessed gang paraphernalia and continued his violent behavior, including attacking other wards and participating in a gang- related attack. The probation report also relied in part on an
10
Ohio Youth Assessment System evaluation, which concluded R.C. was a moderate risk to reoffend in the community.
R.C.’s counsel did not request the court consider any placement other than JF. Substantial evidence supported the conclusions that a disposition other than SYTF could not meet the goals of rehabilitation or community safety, and that a less restrictive disposition would be unsuitable.
(E) Maturity and special needs There was no evidence that R.C.’s age, mental or emotional health, or other special needs would “affect[] the safety or suitability” of an SYTF commitment. (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(E).)
A behavioral health clinician diagnosed R.C. with adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct and posttraumatic stress disorder, which were being treated with medication. But no showing was made that this would affect “the safety or suitability” of an SYTF commitment.
At the time of the disposition, R.C. was four months away from his 18th birthday. According to R.C. and his mother, he was in good physical and mental health. The probation report found no major concerns regarding R.C.’s safety at an SYTF. Substantial evidence supports this criterion for an SYTF commitment.
Conclusion
Substantial evidence supported the criteria in favor of an SYTF commitment. Based on the record before it, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that a less restrictive alternative disposition was unsuitable.
11
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BALTODANO, J.
We concur:
CODY, P. J.
YEGAN, J.
Kevin G. DeNoce, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.