1

Filed 8/14/23 In re C.A. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Tehama)

----

In re C.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

C097069

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. 21JU-000093)

Minor C.A., now 17 years old, was adjudged a ward of the court. He contends the 

juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the County of Tehama Secure 

Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF), rather than a less restrictive placement. Because, on 

this record, we cannot assess whether the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion, 

we will remand the matter for further proceedings.
2

BACKGROUND1

In December 2021, a multicount petition was filed against the minor alleging the 

following: rape of a child 14 years or older (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)), two counts 

aiding or abetting a rape (Pen. Code, § 264.1, subd. (b)(2)), penetration by a foreign 

object (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1)(C)), possession of a handgun by a minor (Pen. 

Code, § 29610), and carrying a loaded firearm in public (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a)). 

Relative to the sexual assault charges, the People also alleged the minor used a firearm 

during the commission of his crimes. (Pen. Code, § 12022.5.) After a contested 

adjudication hearing, the juvenile court dismissed the charge that the minor carried a 

loaded firearm in public and otherwise sustained the petition. 

On August 26, 2022, the probation department (Department) filed a disposition

report (report) indicating this was the minor’s first offense, he lived with both parents and 

his siblings, and regularly attended school. The minor had no gang affiliations and no 

history of drug or alcohol abuse. After his arrest, while he was in custody, the minor was 

“well behaved.” The staff at juvenile hall described him as a “model juvenile [who] does 

not create problems.” Neither he nor his parents believed he raped the victim, only that 

he made a bad choice.

The Department recommended committing the minor to the SYTF:

“Although the minor has no prior record, his sustained allegations in this matter 

are both egregious and troubling, and he needs to be held accountable. It is apparent the 

minor takes minimal, if any, accountability for his actions and does not appear 

remorseful, instead thinking solely of how the situation has impacted him personally.

1 Since the details of the minor’s offenses are not relevant to resolution of the issue on 

appeal, we omit them. Appellant does not dispute that his actions were severe within the 

meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, subdivision (a)(3)(A) (“no 

question” adjudicated offenses were severe).
3

“Wardship and probation appear necessary and are recommended in this matter. 

Furthermore, a lengthy commitment in the [SYTF] also appears appropriate and is 

recommended to ensure the minor is provided the appropriate rehabilitation services.

“The standard terms of probation including search and seizure and drug and 

alcohol testing are recommended. Furthermore, the minor should be required to 

participate in any counseling deemed necessary by the [Department], including sexual 

offender counseling and treatment.”

No detail was provided with respect to what counseling and treatment might be 

available to the minor.

The minor filed a motion for an alternative disposition contending he was entitled 

to an “individualized disposition” addressing whether an alternative less restrictive 

disposition was available to the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 

875, subdivision (a)(3)(D).

At the disposition hearing on September 22, 2022, the People argued the minor 

should be committed to the SYTF, as recommended by the Department. The People 

presented no witnesses. The prosecutor described the minor’s crimes as “egregious,”

stating he should be placed “in a locked facility where [he] can’t do that again to anybody 

else.” Such a disposition, the prosecutor argued, would not only hold the minor 

accountable but protect the public as well.

In closing argument, the prosecutor asked the court to commit the minor to the 

SYTF because it was “the best way of addressing the gravity of the allegations that were 

held to be true here, addressing the safety of the victim and the community, and most 

importantly, addressing the rehabilitative actions necessary for the minor to proceed in 

life in the best manner possible, that the [SYTF] commitment for the term of four years 

that’s possible here is the most appropriate.”

In response to the minor’s motion for alternative placement, the prosecutor said 

the minor could not get the same programming in an alternative placement that he would 
4

receive in the SYTF where “the minor will be provided with an individual rehabilitation 

plan. . . . There’s a team appointed to address both the minor and his family.”

“It will structure programming specifically to the offense committed by the minor. 

The services specific to reintegration into society[,] which will be provided to him[,] will 

include job training, college courses, and one-on-one counseling. . . . He gets a full, 

personalized treatment team specifically to address what actions will benefit him in the 

long run upon completing the programming.” The People offered no evidence or 

specifics about what services might be available to accomplish these goals.

The juvenile court found the minor presented a risk to the community, was the 

“primary offender” in the rape, and demonstrated no remorse for his crimes. The court 

also found the harm to the victim was “extreme,” saying it would “affect her for the rest 

of her life. For the rest of her life.” The court noted it was “very familiar with all of the 

treatment options” observing that placement with the minor’s parents was not an option

because they saw nothing wrong with the minor’s conduct, and placement with them 

“would just reinforce his refusal to acknowledge his behavior.”

Finding this to be a “very severe offense,” the court concluded without further 

explanation that “[o]ther less restrictive dispositions are also unsuitable.” The court thus 

committed the minor to the SYTF, finding it was “the only alternative for the minor to 

hopefully come to understand and accept what he did so he can rehabilitate himself. And 

the programs in the [SYTF], especially MRT,[2] will help him understand the seriousness 

of his conduct. And it’s the best option for [his] success.” The court adopted the report 

and all its terms, incorporating them into its decision and judgment, setting the maximum

term of confinement at 17 years 8 months.

2

 The juvenile court referred to the “MRT” program as one that would be particularly 

beneficial to the minor; however, there is no evidence in the record describing the 

program let alone how it would benefit this minor in particular.
5

The minor filed a timely notice of appeal on September 28, 2022, and after the 

parties’ multiple requests to continue the briefing schedule, the case was fully briefed on 

July 12, 2023.

DISCUSSION

In recent years, the Legislature has overhauled juvenile wardship law by closing 

the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and 

transferring jurisdiction over youthful offenders to counties, with the stated purpose of 

ensuring minors are closer to their families and communities and receive age-appropriate 

treatment. (In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 907; In re T.O. (2022) 84 

Cal.App.5th 252, 262-263; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 736.5; Sen. Bill No. 823 (2019-2020 

Reg. Sess.); Stats. 2020, ch. 337, § 1.)3

A further change to the juvenile law, effective May 14, 2021, established 

requirements for counties’ secure youth treatment facilities. (§ 875, added by Stats. 2021 

ch. 18, § 12 & amended by Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 41.) Among them, such a facility must 

“provide appropriate programming, treatment, and education” for wards; it may be either 

a stand-alone facility or a unit or portion of an existing county juvenile facility “that is 

configured and programmed to serve” the youth committed to it; and it must comply with 

applicable regulatory standards. (§ 875, subd. (g).) Among the general standards 

applicable when the minor was committed, each youth must have the opportunity for at 

least one hour of daily programming, including “trauma focused, cognitive, evidencebased, best practice interventions that are culturally relevant and linguistically 

appropriate, or pro-social interventions and activities designed to reduce recidivism,” 

based on the youth’s individual needs. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 1371, subd. (a).) The 

programs may include, among other things: cognitive behavior interventions;

3

 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
6

management of stress and trauma; anger management; conflict resolution; trauma-related 

interventions; victim awareness; self-improvement; art, creative writing, or selfexpression; restorative justice or civil engagement; and career and leadership 

opportunities. (Ibid.)

Section 875 also sets criteria that must be satisfied before a ward is committed to a 

secure youth treatment facility. Before committing a youth to a secure facility, the court 

must make a finding that no less restrictive alternative disposition is suitable. (§ 875, 

subd. (a)(3).) In making this determination, the court must consider all relevant and 

material evidence, including the recommendations of counsel, the probation department, 

and anyone else designated to advise on the appropriate disposition, and it must base its 

determination on several additional criteria: the severity of the most recent offense or 

offenses; the ward’s previous delinquent history; “[w]hether the programming, treatment, 

and education offered and provided in a secure youth treatment facility is appropriate to 

meet the treatment and security needs of the ward”; whether a less restrictive disposition 

would meet the goals of rehabilitation and public safety; and the ward’s age, maturity, 

mental and emotional health, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and 

disabilities or special needs. (§ 875, subd. (a)(3).)

A decision to commit a minor must be supported by evidence of probable benefit 

to the minor, as well as evidence that less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or 

inappropriate. (See In re Miguel C., supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 906 [DJJ commitment]; 

In re Teofilio A. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 571, 576.) This review “is particularly fact 

intensive and requires a fully informed analysis by the juvenile court of the minor’s needs 

and the programs’ services.” (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1291.)

We review a juvenile court’s placement decision for abuse of discretion. (In re 

Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154.) A court abuses its discretion if its factual 

findings find no support in the evidence. (Ibid.) In our review, we examine the record in 

light of the purposes of the juvenile court law. (Ibid.)
7

The minor contends that, under these standards, the juvenile court abused its 

discretion in committing him to the SYTF. On this record, we cannot assess whether the 

juvenile court properly exercised its discretion. Neither the report, which the juvenile 

court adopted, nor the juvenile court discussed the minor’s specific needs, whether 

alternative placement options were available or reasonable, the specific services available 

at the SYTF, or whether those services would be of probable benefit to the minor.

It is not enough to recognize that a secure youth treatment facility has services that 

can benefit minors in general. A juvenile court must consider the particular minor’s 

needs against the programs and services actually available at a secure youth treatment 

facility in order to determine whether placement would be of probable benefit. (In re 

Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 10.) A juvenile court “could not make that finding, 

and this court cannot review the adequacy of the evidence supporting the finding, without 

evidence in the record of the programs at the [SYTF] expected to be of benefit to 

appellant.” (Ibid.) 

Because the record does not contain any evidence of the minor’s needs or the 

programs and services at the SYTF that might benefit him and serve those needs, we 

cannot assess whether the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in concluding 

that a secure youth treatment facility commitment would be of probable benefit to the 

minor. For that reason, we must vacate the disposition and remand to the juvenile court 

for further dispositional proceedings.

We note the report, which the juvenile court adopted as its own, made no mention 

of alternative placements. The predisposition report stated merely that “a lengthy 

commitment in the [SYTF] . . . appears appropriate and is recommended to ensure the 

minor is provided the appropriate rehabilitation services.” Further, the absence of 

evidence of consideration of alternative placements also requires that the disposition be 

vacated. (See In re A.R. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1080-1081.)

We express no opinion regarding an appropriate disposition upon remand.
8

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order committing appellant to the SYTF is reversed, and the 

matter is remanded for a new disposition hearing.

 /s/

WISEMAN, J.*

We concur:

 /s/

MAURO, Acting P. J.

 /s/

MESIWALA, J.

*

 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by 

the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.