1

Filed 8/9/22 In re J.L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(San Joaquin)

----

In re J.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

C094424

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. 

JJCJVDE20190000801)

This appeal is from a juvenile court’s dispositional order committing J.L. (minor), 

born in February 2005, to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) following his admission 

to several felonies. On appeal, the minor argues his commitment to DJJ was an abuse of 

the juvenile court’s discretion because there was a lack of evidence the commitment was 
2

beneficial, and he had presented uncontroverted evidence commitment to DJJ would 

adversely affect him because of its impending closure. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case involves three sets of petitions filed under Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 602 against the minor over two years.1

A. First Set of Petitions

In June and July 2019, the minor was charged with 10 separate felonies, in three 

petitions, based on three separate incidents. On August 20, 2019, at the contested 

jurisdictional hearing, the minor admitted four counts from the three petitions: willful 

discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (Pen. Code, § 246.3, subd. (a)), 

carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(2)), grand theft of a person (Pen. 

Code, § 487, subd. (c)), and false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236). The remaining 

counts were dismissed. 

The factual basis for the admissions, as agreed to on the record at the jurisdictional 

hearing, described the three events leading to the petitions. On March 16, 2019, the 

minor had a concealed firearm, “and while handling the firearm, the minor . . . shot 

himself in the thigh.” On July 3, the minor and several others entered a home with “A.R. 

styled rifles.” They ordered one victim to lay on the floor, asked this victim where 

firearms were in the house, and punched the victim when the victim did not tell them. 

They then rummaged through the house finding “a number of firearms that belonged to 

the victims.” Two other victims came home during the incident and “were ordered inside 

of the house at gunpoint and also ordered to lay on the floor near the first victim.” The 

minor and the others eventually left with the stolen firearms. Finally, for the third 

incident, the minor was in a car stopped by police, and during a search, “a firearm was 

1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

located near the minor and it was later determined to be one of the firearms that was 

stolen” during the prior incident. 

On September 18, 2019, the minor was declared a ward of the juvenile court. 

Instead of committing the minor to the San Joaquin County probation camp program, as 

probation recommended and the People argued for, the juvenile court sentenced the 

minor to 300 days in juvenile hall with a maximum period of confinement of five years. 

At a status hearing on December 18, 2019, the probation officer reported the 

minor “had seven write-ups for disobedience, two write-ups for group disturbances, and 

two write-ups for contraband,” summarizing his performance as “mixed. Not great. Not 

horrible, but he could do better.” The minor was released to his parents on March 18, 

2020. 

B. Second Set of Petitions

After the minor’s release, two notices of probation violations were filed in April 

and May 2020, and then another petition was filed on May 29, 2020. This petition 

alleged five felonies, along with several enhancements. On June 18, 2020, the minor 

admitted to a charge of carjacking. (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a).) The remaining charges 

were dismissed and the violations of probations were discharged. 

The parties stipulated to the police report for the factual basis of the admission. 

This report stated that on April 8, 2020, the victim was working on his car when three 

males drove up and asked him if he wanted to buy firearms. The males then threatened 

him with guns, one punched him in the face, and they then drove off with his car. The 

victim identified the minor as the driver of the first car and “who pointed the gun at him 

saying ‘get out.’ ” The minor admitted to police he was present during the carjacking. 

At the disposition hearing on July 2, 2020, the juvenile court adopted the 

probation department’s recommendation and committed the minor to the probation camp 

with a maximum period of confinement of 12 years. The minor was released on 

December 17, 2020, through the camp’s aftercare program. 
4

C. Third Set of Petitions

After the minor’s second release, an additional five petitions were filed between 

February and April 2021, collectively alleging two probation violations and 12 felonies, 

along with several enhancements, related to events both in and out of custody. 

On April 9, 2021, the minor admitted three charges: carrying a loaded firearm 

(Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(2)), battery resulting in great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 

243, subd. (d)), and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 

245, subd. (a)(4)). All remaining charges and enhancements were dismissed, and the 

probation violations were discharged. 

The parties stipulated to probation reports as the factual basis for the admissions. 

These reports show that on February 9 and 10, 2021, the minor posted to his social media 

account videos and pictures of him holding and displaying firearms. During a probation 

search at the minor’s house on February 10, the minor was found outside of the house 

next to a car with several firearms inside; the minor was booked into juvenile hall. On 

March 2, the minor participated with several others in an attack of two other minors in 

juvenile hall. And on March 23, the minor got involved in a fight between two youths at 

juvenile hall and disregarded a detention officer’s order to stop and get on the ground. 

D. Final Disposition

1. Probation Report

The probation report prepared for disposition acknowledged the minor “has had 

some successes on Probation including, completing the Electronic Monitoring Program 

on two occasions and CAMP program.” But the minor also “does not appear to respect 

authority figures and fails to follow the directives of the Court, along with obeying his 

parents. [The minor] is able to distinguish the difference between what is right and 

wrong, but plays the victim when approached about his actions and tends to blame it on 

others and the environment he is in.” The report recommended a commitment to DJJ

because the minor “would benefit from a more structured environment that provides 
5

opportunities to further his education and programming. . . . [¶] The [DJJ] provides 

treatment programs that address violent and criminal behavior, substance abuse, and 

mental health problems all while maintaining a safe and secure environment. Further, 

DJJ offers [the minor] to continue their education including completing college courses 

and a variety of vocational programs.” 

2. Testimony

Over several days in June 2021, the juvenile court held the contested dispositional 

hearing with three witnesses testifying.

Dr. Carolyn Murphy, a forensic psychologist, testified based on her interview of 

the minor in May 2021, interview of family members, and a review of the minor’s 

records. The minor disclosed to her he was the victim of “pretty significant sexual 

abuse,” he had been struggling with depression, and he had substance abuse issues. In a 

review of his school records, she found his defiance in school “appear[ed] to correspond 

with the disclosed onset of some sexual abuse.” There were also mental health issues in 

the minor’s family and the minor disclosed to her that when he shot himself in the leg, he 

was “suicidal,” “[h]e was wanting to kill himself and then accidentally shot himself.” 

The minor also disclosed more significant substance use than she believed the minor 

disclosed to probation. The minor used alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine starting as an 

early teen, and his use would come in waves—using heavily and then stopping for a little

while. 

Dr. Murphy suggested that to help the minor, he needed to be in an “environment 

where sobriety [wa]s assured. . . . [T]hen you want to do concurrent substance abuse 

treatment, address his past history of abuse, address his behavioral issues and coping skill 

deficits. . . . [¶] So the short answer is, psychotherapy or counseling, psycho-education, 

you know, skill building, substance abuse treatment, and enforced sobriety. . . . [¶] So 

you also want to help him finish his education, look at vocational training, a sense of 
6

purpose and identity, parenting skills, hobbies and interests, with the idea in mind that 

you want to beef up his prosocial skills and address unmet needs.”

As for placement, Dr. Murphy testified there were alternatives to DJJ that could 

better meet the minor’s needs, but she could not provide specific locations or placements. 

She also agreed it could be detrimental for the minor’s treatment to be disrupted because, 

“given his particular issues, and I’m talking specifically to the sexual abuse, there’s going 

to need to be a lot of trust. Fewer people to reveal some of these things and not have to 

retell his story over and over again. So I think considering a program that’s got less staff 

turnover—I haven’t thought of this before, but that would probably be an important thing 

to look at in terms of selecting location.” But she also agreed DJJ could help the minor’s 

substance abuse goal of creating a period of sustained and secured abstinence. 

The defense also called probation officer Ken Chiong to testify, who was the 

supervisor for the juvenile probation camp. The camp was in the process of transitioning 

to providing services only to minors that have been committed to over 30 days in juvenile 

hall. When asked if the camp is ready to reaccept youths, Officer Chiong said it depends 

on the case, as decided by their behavioral management committee. He said the minor 

had been at the camp before, and they “never had any issues with him. He actually did 

real well and stuff. So it’s all what the committee would agree on, depending on a caseby-case thing.” When asked if he thought the minor would be a good candidate for the 

camp’s new program, Officer Chiong said: “In a sense. He was successful previously. 

Like I said, behavior-wise and stuff, he was respectful to staff. He really didn’t give us 

any problems like that.” 

Finally, Officer Kristin Crenshaw testified she worked at juvenile hall and had 

seen the minor a couple of times there and at the camp over the last two and a half years. 

She said she had seen changes in him, he had been working on his anger and had gotten a 

lot better at following directives, saying when she told “him something, it’s only one time 

and he corrects his behavior.” She felt DJJ wasn’t a good setting for the minor, 
7

explaining she believed he would benefit from being away from peer pressure and would 

do better “in a smaller setting and if he is able to be around his family, positive 

influences.” Officer Crenshaw acknowledged the minor had 11 issues in six weeks in 

juvenile hall: He was written up for six disobediences, had been in two fights, had stolen 

property, and was twice found in possession of contraband. But, she said, this was the 

result of peer pressure and needing to show off to “fit in or to look cool.” 

3. Documentary Evidence

The prosecutor entered into evidence DJJ program fact sheets. The fact sheet on 

the available mental health treatment programs states, in part: “DJJ Mental Health 

Services provide an evidence-based continuum of care based on the Principles of 

Effective Interventions. The standardized curriculum provides participating youth with 

education, interventions, and exercises to assist them in stabilizing their mental health 

symptoms, increase pro-social decision-making, and reduce criminogenic risk factors. 

[¶] These mental health interventions include Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral 

Treatment (TF-CBT), psychopharmacological services, and specific interventions for 

diagnoses extracted from existing research. Mental Health Services uses an 

interdisciplinary and collaborative treatment approach with youth and staff to develop 

objective individual treatment plans to stabilize mental health symptoms, as well as, 

target dynamic risk factors that contribute to re-offense.” This fact sheet also provided 

information on specific mental health programs, mental health facilities, and staffing. 

The packet also provided information on intervention strategy programs, including 

“Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Substance Abuse.” This program “is a 39-

session curriculum designed for individuals who are moderate to high need in the area of 

substance abuse. . . . This intervention relies on a cognitive behavioral approach to teach 

participants strategies for avoiding substance abuse.” Other intervention programs 

include “Aggression Replacement Training,” “CounterPoint”—an intervention for male 

offenders presenting a greater risk of re-offending—and mandatory journaling programs 
8

“designed to respond to individual treatment needs.” The packet also provided fact 

sheets on DJJ’s education services, including career technical education, and its re-entry 

program. 

The parties also entered a stipulation to admit evidence regarding juvenile justice 

realignment after recent legislation. This included statements from the Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation’s website stating DJJ would be closed by June 30, 2023, 

DJJ would be closing programs over the next two years—but “[n]o one currently knows 

what programs are being eliminated or when”—and DJJ “will be transitioning youth at 

DJJ on a case-by-case basis back to their county of placement.” 

4. Order

On June 28, 2021, following the parties’ closing arguments, the court said it 

considered all the arguments, “reviewed closely the exhibits,” considered the probation 

report, and found the “recommendations of the probation department [we]re appropriate 

and in the minor’s best interest.” The court therefore committed the minor to DJJ with 

the maximum period of confinement of 10 years four months. 

II. DISCUSSION

The minor argues the trial court erred in committing him to DJJ and asks us to 

remand for the juvenile court to reconsider the appropriateness of DJJ. 

A. Legal Standards

A juvenile court’s decision to commit a minor to DJJ “ ‘may be reversed on appeal 

only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion.’ ” (In re Jose T. (2010) 191 

Cal.App.4th 1142, 1147.) This requires the commitment to be based on substantial 

evidence, as “ ‘ “[a] trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to 

its decision find no support in the evidence.” ’ ” (In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 

1150, 1154.) When reviewing a commitment for substantial evidence, we “ ‘must 

indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court,’ ” and “ 
9

‘we must examine the record presented at the disposition hearing in light of the purposes 

of the Juvenile Court Law.’ ” (In re Jose T., supra, at p. 1147.)

As described in section 202, the purpose of juvenile delinquency law is to 

“provide for the protection and safety of the public and each minor under the jurisdiction 

of the juvenile court and to preserve and strengthen the minor’s family ties whenever 

possible.” (§ 202, subd. (a).) If a juvenile court determines removal of a minor is 

necessary, the purpose of the law is “to secure for the minor custody, care, and discipline 

as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his or her 

parents.” (Ibid.) This requires balancing the minor’s “best interest and the best interest 

of the public. Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a consequence of 

delinquent conduct shall, in conformity with the interests of public safety and protection, 

receive care, treatment, and guidance that is consistent with their best interest, that holds 

them accountable for their behavior, and that is appropriate for their circumstances.” 

(§ 202, subd. (b).) “Juvenile courts and other public agencies charged with enforcing, 

interpreting, and administering the juvenile court law shall consider the safety and 

protection of the public, the importance of redressing injuries to victims, and the best 

interests of the minor in all deliberations pursuant to this chapter.” (§ 202, subd. (d).)

Historically, the statutory scheme “contemplate[d] ‘a progressively more 

restrictive and punitive series of dispositions’ with DJJ ‘normally a placement of last 

resort.’ ” (In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 906.) To this end, no minor could 

be committed to DJJ unless the court was “fully satisfied that the mental and physical 

condition and qualifications of the ward are such as to render it probable that he will be 

benefited by the reformatory educational discipline or other treatment provided by 

[DJJ].” (§ 734; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.790(h)(3) [“[t]he decision regarding 

choice of placement must take into account . . . [¶] . . . [t]hat the setting is the 

environment best suited to meet the child’s special needs and best interest”].) The 

evidence to support this finding must have included, at a minimum, “brief descriptions of 
10

the relevant” DJJ programs that addressed a minor’s particular needs. (In re Carlos J. 

(2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 12.) There was “ ‘no absolute rule that a [DJJ] commitment 

[could] be ordered unless less restrictive placements have been attempted.’ ” (In re 

Calvin (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 522, 528.) But “there must be evidence ‘supporting a 

determination that less restrictive alternatives are ineffective or inappropriate.’ ” (In re 

Carlos J., supra, at p. 6.) Thus, a DJJ commitment was “ ‘not an abuse of discretion 

where the evidence demonstrate[d] a probable benefit to the minor from the commitment 

and less restrictive alternatives would [have been] ineffective or inappropriate.’ ” (In re 

Calvin, supra, at p. 528.)

Senate Bill No. 823 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 337), passed in 2020,

and Senate Bill No. 92 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 10), passed in 2021, 

significantly overhauled juvenile justice in California by shifting juvenile justice 

responsibility from DJJ to counties. (See Stats. 2020, ch. 337, § 1, subd. (b); 736.5, subd. 

(a).) DJJ is now statutorily mandated to “close on June 30, 2023,” and minors shall not 

be committed to DJJ “[b]eginning July 1, 2021.” (§ 736.5, subds. (e), (b); see § 733.1, 

subd. (a).) Courts may commit a minor to DJJ before July 1, 2021, and any minor 

committed before then “shall remain within its custody until the ward is discharged, 

released or otherwise moved pursuant to law, or until final closure of the [DJJ].” (§

736.5, subd. (d); see § 733.1, subd. (b).)

B. Analysis

Given the minor was committed to DJJ on June 28, 2021, the minor was not 

statutorily ineligible for a commitment to DJJ; the minor does not contend otherwise. 

Instead, the minor argues insufficient evidence supported the commitment because:

(1) the probation recommendations for DJJ did not provide “brief descriptions of the 

relevant programs” and instead “contained a mission statement about DJJ programs as a 

whole”; and (2) the prosecution failed to adequately respond to the minor’s evidence a 

DJJ placement would be harmful to him.
11

There is substantial evidence supporting the minor’s commitment to DJJ here. 

Even though the probation report did not provide specific information on DJJ 

programming, the packet the prosecutor provided to the juvenile court listed numerous 

programs that would specifically benefit the minor. As Dr. Murphy testified, the minor 

needed a sober environment with substance abuse programming, mental health support to 

address both substance abuse and past sexual abuse, and the development of prosocial 

skills such as vocational training and hobbies. According to the evidence, DJJ has 

programs addressing each of these. It has substance abuse programs and Dr. Murphy 

agreed DJJ would be an appropriate sober environment. DJJ also has extensive mental 

health services specifically tailored to each minor’s needs. And there are several

educational and vocational training programs that build prosocial skills.

There is also substantial evidence a less restrictive placement would have been 

ineffective. Before the DJJ commitment, the minor had been placed three times in two 

less restrictive settings: juvenile hall twice, and the probation camp once. The minor did 

not perform well during and after these placements. The minor had numerous write-ups 

and fought at least twice in juvenile hall. After release from both placements, he almost 

immediately continued his criminal and dangerous behavior. Numerous least restrictive 

placements failed to curtail his criminal proclivity. (See In re A.R. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 

1076, 1082 [finding the minor’s continued criminal behavior after less restrictive 

placements left “little doubt that less restrictive alternatives have been wholly ineffective 

in rehabilitating the [m]inor”].)

The minor further contends reversal is warranted because the prosecutor failed to 

address his evidence commitment to DJJ would be detrimental because it is closing, and 

he needs consistent treatment. Initially, there was no evidence DJJ commitment would 

result in detrimentally inconsistent treatment. Dr. Murphy testified the minor would 

benefit from consistent treatment and it was stipulated DJJ is closing no later than June 

30, 2023. The minor makes a leap that because DJJ must close in two years, this would 
12

be inconsistent enough to be detrimental to the minor. There is no evidence directly 

supporting this conclusion.

But even if there was evidence of a potential detriment based on inconsistency, 

there is no legal requirement for the prosecution to rebut all evidence of potential 

detriment. Courts instead must be fully satisfied a DJJ commitment would be a probable 

benefit by weighing all of the evidence together, so conflicting evidence does not 

automatically warrant reversal. (In re N.C. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 81, 87 [“While we 

acknowledge this conflicting evidence, it does not render the juvenile court’s 

commitment order an abuse of discretion or warrant its reversal”].) Otherwise, a court 

would be obligated to adopt any doctor’s conclusion left unrebutted, which would 

undermine the court’s ultimate authority in deciding whether a DJJ commitment would 

be a probable benefit. (Cf. In re Alejandro G. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 472, 480 [“The 

court is not under any obligation to adopt the doctors’ opinions. Such a requirement 

would undermine the court’s role in determining a minor’s competency”].) For the 

reasons stated above, there was substantial evidence here a DJJ commitment would 

benefit the minor, even if there was some conflicting evidence. (In re N.C., supra, at p. 

87 [“our role on appeal is to determine whether the juvenile court’s order is reasonably 

grounded in the record, not to reweigh the evidence in the record”].)2 The juvenile court 

therefore did not abuse its discretion.

2

 The minor relies on In re Miguel C., supra, 69 Cal.App.5th 899 for its holding: “In the 

event of credible opposing evidence, the People would then be obligated ‘to present more 

indepth information about the [DJJ] in order to show probable benefit.’ ” (Id. at p. 910.) 

For the reasons previously discussed, we disagree with this finding to the extent it 

imposes a duty on prosecutors to respond to all contradicting evidence. In re Miguel C.

derives its finding from In re Carlos J., which merely provided guidance that if a minor 

presents evidence of a potential detriment, “it may be necessary for the People to provide 

additional information.” (In re Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 14, italics added.) 

The appellate court in In re Carlos J. clarified: “We make no attempt in this decision to 
13

III. DISPOSITION

The dispositional order committing the minor to the Division of Juvenile Justice is 

affirmed.

/S/

 

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

 

HULL, Acting P. J.

/S/

 

DUARTE, J.

comprehensively set forth the type and quantum of information the probation department 

should provide, either in its initial presentation at the time of disposition or in response to 

any showing made by a minor raising concerns about the [DJJ].” (Id. at p. 14.) The 

probation department and prosecutor in In re Carlos J. also failed to provide any 

“concrete evidence in the record about relevant programs at the [DJJ].” (Id. at p. 12.) 

This is not the case here.