Filed 5/13/14 In re A lejandro O. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re ALEJANDRO O

. , a P erson Coming Under the Juvenile Cou rt Law. B 2 51542
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ 20081 )

THE PEOPLE
,
Plaintiff and Respondent
,

v.

ALEJANDRO O
.,
Defendant an d Appellant

.

APPEAL from a dispositional order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, S. Fumiko Wasserman
, Judge

. Affirmed

. Stephen Borgo , under appointment by the Co urt of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris
, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters
, Assistant Attor ney General, Steven D.
Matthews and Analee J . Brodie
, Deputy Attorneys General , for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 INTRODUCTION Alejandro O

. (minor) appeals from a n order of the juvenile court detaining
him in juvenile hall pending a suitable placement. He con tends the court abused its discretion in failing to consider the remedial steps he had voluntarily undertaken, and declining to place him at home on probation. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 22, 2013 , the prosecutor f iled a two

- count wardship petition under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 602
, 1 alleging that the minor co mmitted battery on a school employee (Pen. Code, § 243.6 ) and public intoxication (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)). The court referred the matter t o the p robation
d epartment for a section 654.2 pre

- plea report. According to the probation officer’ s report, o n January 24, 2013, the minor was brought to the nurse’s office at his high school by school security because he appeared extremely intoxicated. Aft er security left and the nurse was left alone with the minor, the nurse attempted to reach the minor’s mother by telephone, but had to leave a message. The minor then requested permission to go to the bathroom to throw up. At the same time, the mino r’s mother called the nurse. The nurse answered the phone, turning her back briefly to the minor, whereupon the minor began hitting her in the back of her head with his fist

. When she turned around, he struck her in the face, forehead, and upper body. E ventually, the nurse was able to get help. Police subsequently arrested the minor and took him to the hospital. After waiving his rights, he told the officer s he drank a water bottle

- size d container filled with tequila and rum that morning, after his mot her dropped h im off, but before school started

.

1 Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code

.3

The report also noted that the minor had a discipline record dating back four

year s to when he was 11 years old. There were numerous acts of violence against
other students (punching them in their genitals ) , defiance, disruption
, and marijuana issues that required multiple intervention s by school personnel. According to the report, the minor’s mother stated that he wa s depressed and had experienced anger issues and behavior al problems since junior high sch ool. The report noted that the minor’ s behavior had improved since the incident. As a result of the attack, the victim suffer ed from debilitating headaches, blurry vision, post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and memory loss. She could

not return to work and was on disability. The report noted that the minor expressed no remorse, and that the mother express ed no emotion when she was
told how serious ly the victim was injured by her son.
The probation report recommended that the minor be declared a ward of the court and placed in a camp community placement for the following reasons: “It is felt that the minor poses a threat to the community. He severely injured the victim without provocation. He is using marijuana and alcohol without consequences in the family home. The minor needs to be in a secure setting where he will be held accountable for his actions and receive consequences.”
At t he adjudication hearing, the minor’s counsel submitted on count 2 (public intoxication), but argued that the m inor was so intoxicated, he did not remember attacking the nurse. The nurse described the attack and testified that she was still suffering from headaches and had not returned to work

. The minor admitted that on the morning of the incident he drank alco hol obtained from home, but claimed it was the first time he had done so . He stated that he decided to drink because he was depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend. He remembered walking to the nurse’s office, but could not recall anything until he woke up in the hospital. He stated he was not a violent person,4

was not in his “ right mind ” at the time , and did not intend to hurt the nurse. He felt very bad about the incident, and was disappointed in himself. The court found the allegations true and sustained the petition. At th e dispositional hearing, the min o r ’s counsel argued that the minor had taken proact ive steps since the incident. He had completed a substance abuse program
, submitted to 12 random drug tests and r eceived 12 negative resu lts

. Additionally,
he had entered an anger management counsel ing program. His mother testified
that he had improved his be havior and school grades. He had agreed to all suggested counseling, and “[i]f more counseling is necessary, then we are willing

to do more counseling.” The prosecutor argued that at a minimum, the court should order the minor to placement. She noted that the minor had a long history of behavior al problems, and expressed her concern that the minor’s recent good behavior was a short

- term reaction to his fear of being placed in camp. The juvenile court declared the minor a ward of the court under section 602. It rejected the probation report’s recommendation of a camp placement, but further
determined that “ [ c ] ontinuance in the hom e of the parent is contrary to the minor’s
welfare.” The court temporarily placed the minor with the probation department until suitable placement could be found. The minor timely appealed.
DISCUSSION “A juvenile court’ s commitment order may be revers ed on appeal only upo n a showing the court abused its discretion. [Citation.] ‘“ We must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings when there is substa ntial evidence to support them. ’ ” [Citation.]” ( In re Robert H . (2002) 96 Cal.App. 4th 1317, 1329

- 1330

. ) Appellant
contends the court abused its discretion in deciding against returning appellant5

home on probation and instead ordering suitable placement . Specifically, he argues the co urt failed to give “ enough consideration ” to the steps appellant had
taken to rehabilitate himself. As explained below, w e disagree. Pursuant to section 202, in determining the proper care, treatment and guidance for a minor under its jurisdiction, a juve nile court “shall consider the safety and protection of the public, the importance of redressing injuries to victims, and the best interests of the minor.” (§ 202, subd. (d).) The disposition must be “consistent with [the minor’s] best interest,” “hold [] [him] accountable for [his] behavior,” and be “ appropriate for [his] circumstances.” (§ 202, subd. (b).) The court acted in conformity with those principles in the instant case. Here, the minor
attacked a school nurse without provocation while she was attempting to assist
him . The attack targeted the victim’s head, leaving her with debilitating headaches, blurry vision, memory loss, post

- traumatic stress and anxiety. T wo months after the attack, t he victim ha d not fully recovered and was still on
disa bility. The gravity of the offense alone w ould have justified the court ’s order
of camp placement for the safety and protection of the public

. The court properly considered appellant’s circumstances. He had obtained the alcohol from his mother’s home. He had a history of committing acts of violence against his fellow students. The escalation of appellant’s violent behavior

-- from punching fellow students to beating a school nurse about the head and face

-- indicated that the minor needed treatment no t being provided at home. Appellant contends his recent improved behavior showed that he had changed. The court, however, was entitled to evaluate the credibility of the minor and to determine the weight to be given his recent behavior. (See In re Rober t H ., supra , 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 13 29 [juvenile court entitled to evaluate credibility of minor and weight to be afforded psychological evaluation].) In light of appellant’s
behavior over the past several years, the court acted within its discretion in6

d etermining that any improvement in appellant’s behavior since the attack on the

nurse was in sufficient to support his remaining home on probation. On this record, the court properly exercised its discretion by concluding the minor should be
committed to s uitable placement. We find no merit to the suggestion that the court’s silence on appellant’s post

- incident behavior ind i cat ed it had failed to consider such behavior or accord it any weight

. In this regard, In re Ricky H . (1981) 30 Cal.3d 176 is ins tructive.
Th e re, the appellant minor argued that the trial court abused its discretion in committing him to the California Youth Authority without giving adequate consideration to less restrictive alternatives, such as placement in the local county youth center. ( Id . at p. 179.) The minor contended the lack of inquiry or comment by the judge at the dispositional hearing established that the court had failed to
consider less restricti ve alternatives . ( Id . at p. 183.) The Supreme C ourt rejected
the conte ntion :

“ This court cannot assume that the superior court judge, who presided over the dispositional hearin g and heard appellant’s counsel’ s arguments, gave them no considerat ion or completely failed to eva luate appellant’ s suita bility for the Youth Authori ty. Moreover, the silence of the judge regarding his reasons for making a Youth Authority commitment has never be en held to violate statutory or constitutional requirements. [Citation.]

. . . [T] he absence of inquiry does not establish that the superior court failed to consider other placements. ” ( In re Ricky H
., supra , 30 Cal.3d at pp. 183

- 184.)
Here, the court heard testimony from appellant and his mother about his behavior following the incident . It hear d argument from appellant’s counsel that
his recent behavior support ed returning him home on probation. The court read the probation report
, which recommended camp placement despite the recent improved behavior. It also heard from the prosecuto r , wh o argued

-- at a minimum

-- for placement outside the home . After considering all the evidence and7

argument s , the court rejected both camp placement and returning appellant home,
and ordered suitable placement. We note that the court apparently accorded appellant’s behavior some weight as the court rej ected the recommendation for camp placement. On this record, we find the court considered appellant’s recent behavior in determining the appropriate disposition and did not abuse its discretion in ordering suitable placement.
DISPOSITION The disposition al order is affirmed

.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

MANELLA, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

WILLHITE, J.