Filed 5/13/14 In re Alejandro 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B251542

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. JJ20081)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALEJANDRO O., 

 Defendant and 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 Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. 

Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

Alejandro O. (minor) appeals from an order of the juvenile court detaining 

him in juvenile hall pending a suitable placement. He contends 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 filed a two-count wardship petition under 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,

1

alleging that the minor committed 

battery on a school employee (Pen. Code, § 243.6) and public intoxication 

(Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)). The court referred the matter to the probation 

department for a section 654.2 pre-plea report. 

According to the probation officer’s report, on January 24, 2013, the minor 

was brought to the nurse’s office at his high school by school security because he 

appeared extremely intoxicated. After 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 minor’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. Eventually, 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 officers he drank a water bottle-sized

container filled with tequila and rum that morning, after his mother dropped him 

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 

years 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 interventions by school personnel. 

According to the report, the minor’s mother stated that he was depressed and had 

experienced anger issues and behavioral problems since junior high school. The 

report noted that the minor’s behavior had improved since the incident. 

As a result of the attack, the victim suffered 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 expressed no emotion when she was 

told how seriously 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 the adjudication hearing, the minor’s counsel submitted on count 2 

(public intoxication), but argued that the minor 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 alcohol 

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 the 

dispositional hearing, the minor’s counsel argued that the minor had taken 

proactive steps since the incident. He had completed a substance abuse program, 

submitted to 12 random drug tests and received 12 negative results. Additionally, 

he had entered an anger management counseling program. His mother testified 

that he had improved his behavior 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 behavioral 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 home 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 reversed on appeal only upon 

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 substantial 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 appellant 
5

home on probation and instead ordering suitable placement. Specifically, he 

argues the court failed to give “enough consideration” to the steps appellant had 

taken to rehabilitate himself. As explained below, we disagree.

Pursuant to section 202, in determining the proper care, treatment and 

guidance for a minor under its jurisdiction, a juvenile 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. Two 

months after the attack, the victim had not fully recovered and was still on 

disability. The gravity of the offense alone would 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 not 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 Robert H., supra, 

96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1329 [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 in 
6

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

nurse was insufficient to support his remaining home on probation. On this record, 

the court properly exercised its discretion by concluding the minor should be 

committed to suitable placement. 

We find no merit to the suggestion that the court’s silence on appellant’s 

post-incident behavior indicated 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 instructive. 

There, 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 restrictive alternatives. (Id. at p. 183.) The Supreme Court rejected 

the contention:

“This court cannot assume that the superior court judge, who presided over 

the dispositional hearing and heard appellant’s counsel’s arguments, gave 

them no consideration or completely failed to evaluate appellant’s suitability 

for the Youth Authority. Moreover, the silence of the judge regarding his 

reasons for making a Youth Authority commitment has never been 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 heard argument from appellant’s counsel that 

his recent behavior supported 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 prosecutor, who argued -- at a minimum 

-- for placement outside the home. After considering all the evidence and 
7

arguments, 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 rejected 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 dispositional order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

MANELLA, J. 

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

WILLHITE, J.