Filed 1/11/24 In re S.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.R., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

2d Juv. Crim. No. B327505

(Super. Ct. No. 20JV00074)

(Santa Barbara County)

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.R.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

The People filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst.

Code,

1 § 602, subd. (a)) alleging that S.R. committed murder 

(Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), dissuaded a witness by 

force or threat (id., § 136.1, subd. (c)(1); count 2), and committed 

an assault with a semiautomatic firearm (id., § 245, subd. (b); 

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2

count 3). All counts alleged that the offenses were committed for 

the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal 

street gang. (Id., § 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Counts 1 and 2 alleged 

that a principal intentionally discharged a firearm that 

proximately caused the victim’s death. (Id., § 12022.53, subds. 

(b)-(e)(1).) Count 3 alleged that S.R. personally inflicted great 

bodily injury on the victim (id., § 12022.7, subd. (a)) and 

personally used a firearm (id., § 12022.5, subd. (d)).

The People moved to transfer S.R. from juvenile court to a 

court of criminal jurisdiction pursuant to section 707. The 

juvenile court granted the motion. We affirm.

FACTS

Underlying offense

In August 2021, A.D.V., made a social media post in 

remembrance of a slain cousin. It was suspected that a member 

of the West Side VLP gang (VLP gang) murdered A.D.V.’s cousin, 

who was a member of the rival F Street gang. A.D.V. was

cooperating with the police in the investigation of the murder of 

his cousin and was considered a “snitch” by VLP gang members. 

Two VLP gang members threatened to kill A.D.V. and were later 

arrested.

S.R. is a member of the VLP gang. In October 2021, A.D.V. 

was standing in front of his apartment. S.R. and another VLP 

gang member, J.B., walked by. S.R. and J.B. traded insults with 

A.D.V. Initially S.R. and J.B. walked away. A.D.V.’s sister-inlaw filmed them. S.R. picked up a rock and threw it at her. 

A.D.V. walked toward S.R. and J.B. An argument led to a 

physical altercation. As A.D.V. tried to return to his apartment, 

S.R. and J.B. shot a total of nine shots at him. Four of the shots 

hit A.D.V. in the back. Both of A.D.V.’s children were outside 
3

and witnessed the shooting. One of the shots grazed A.D.V.’s 

sister-in-law as she picked up A.D.V.’s youngest child. A.D.V. 

subsequently died of his wounds. S.R. was 16 years old at the 

time.

S.R.’s Background

Both of S.R.’s birth parents were addicted to drugs and had 

criminal histories. S.R. and his siblings suffered from instability, 

neglect, and abuse. S.R. was in foster care before being placed 

with his aunt, Laura F. Laura F. adopted S.R. when he was nine 

years old.

Due to his childhood trauma, S.R. suffers from Attention 

Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) and Post-Traumatic Stress 

Disorder (PTSD). He has an unstable personal identity, is highly 

susceptible to peer influence, and is prone to impulsivity and lack 

of emotional control. S.R.’s intellectual functioning is at the 37th

percentile.

Laura F. provided S.R. with a stable and loving home for 

six to seven years until he was detained for the current offenses. 

Laura F.’s partner mentored S.R. Laura F. tried to keep S.R. out 

of gang involvement and from making poor choices in friends. 

She also sought counseling and other appropriate interventions.

When S.R. was 14 years old, he was mentored by John 

Hurst who worked for the Community Action Commission in 

Lompoc. Under Hurst’s guidance, S.R. completed reasoning and 

rehabilitation programs. S.R. did well in the programs and 

formed a strong relationship with Hurst. Nevertheless, in spite

of the programs and Hurst’s guidance, S.R. became involved with 

the VLP gang.

As a member of the VLP gang, S.R. earned the moniker 

“Looney.” Law enforcement suspected he had been involved in 
4

another gang shooting that occurred prior to the underlying 

offense. In October 2020, law enforcement found him in 

possession of a loaded shotgun and handgun while in the 

company of a VLP gang associate.

Performance in Juvenile Hall

S.R. entered juvenile hall in November 2021. From that 

date through February 2022, S.R. received numerous disciplinary 

write-ups called Worker’s Special Reports (WSR’s). The WSR’s

were for failure to follow staff orders and for showing disrespect 

to staff. In early February 2022, S.R. received a WSR for writing 

lyrics celebrating the murder of A.D.V.

By March 2022, however, S.R.’s behavior had improved 

enough to be placed in the “Trust Unit,” which has a family-like 

environment. In November 2022, S.R. was moved out of the 

Trust Unit for fighting. He was involved in two other fights in 

November 2022. The fights had “gang undertone[s].”

On the positive side, S.R. earned his high school diploma 

with good grades, obtained a safe food handler certification, and

enrolled in community college level courses. He earned his way 

back into the Trust Unit in February 2023.

During the 14 months S.R. was in juvenile hall, he 

participated in four programs, met bi-weekly with a psychiatrist, 

and took his medications. S.R. also requested placement in the 

ARISE gang intervention program. The ARISE program has not 

been shown by research data to be effective.

Expert Opinion

Ruben Robles is a forensic social worker. Robles testified 

that S.R. would benefit from the probation department’s 

“incentive based cognitive behavioral therapy.” The program 

offers role models and practical life skills. Robles believes that 
5

S.R. had an identity crisis and needed “prosocial people and 

model behaviors.” Robles believes that S.R is amenable to 

services and that the probation department has the resources to 

support him while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. 

Without such services S.R. could reoffend after jurisdiction 

expires.

Doctor Teo Ernst is a licensed psychologist. He testified 

that S.R. has an unstable personal identity, is highly vulnerable 

to peer influence, and prone to impulsivity and lapses in 

emotional control. Ernst testified, “[S.R.’s] current violence risk, 

if he were released in the community today, it’s my opinion that 

it’s moderate to high relative to other juvenile offenders.” Ernst 

believed that with treatment aimed at violence reduction and 

brain maturity, S.R.’s risk for violence would likely be reduced in 

the future. Ernst testified, however, that S.R. had some 

characteristics that were mildly correlated with reoffending. 

Ernst reported that S.R. is unable to consider cutting off relations 

with his peer group. Ernst concluded that there is a reasonable 

probability S.R. will not reoffend if he is provided services until 

age 25, but he could not say definitely that S.R. would not 

reoffend.

Ruling

In determining whether S.R. is amenable to rehabilitation 

while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the court 

considered the factors listed in section 707, subdivision 

(a)(3)(A)-(E).

A. Degree of Criminal Sophistication

In assessing the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited 

by S.R., the juvenile court acknowledged that S.R. had a terrible 

early childhood until he was adopted by Laura F. and suffers 
6

from ADHD and PTSD. The court also acknowledged that S.R. 

suffers from a low general IQ. Laura F., however, provided him 

with a loving and stable home. She provided for all his needs, 

including counseling and other interventions to keep him away 

from gangs. Laura F.’s partner also tried to help S.R. Finally

Hurst intervened. None of it worked. In spite of all the 

intervention, S.R. drew closer to his gang.

The juvenile court stated in part: 

“[S.R.’s] behavior prior to the instant offense demonstrated 

an increasing involvement with the VLP gang, eventually 

earning him the moniker ‘Looney.’ He had frequent encounters 

with law enforcement, some involving firearms, that demonstrate 

an increasing criminal sophistication, such as avoiding law 

enforcement, allegedly disposing of weapons before being stopped 

and, in one instance, asking officers to not search him as he just 

got off probation and did not want to suffer further consequences. 

“[S.R.] and his associate deliberately confronted the victim, 

in broad daylight and in the presence of others, to intimidate and 

came prepared with loaded firearms. It is also clear [S.R.] had

little regard for his conduct, composing lyrics seemingly 

celebrating the murder after the fact. After the murder, [S.R.]

fled, and hid for nearly a month, and deleted his social media 

posts. These acts demonstrate criminal sophistication and clear 

criminal intent.”

The juvenile court found that in committing the underlying 

offenses, S.R.’s acts are consistent with his gang affiliation and 

were deliberate and thought out. The court further found that

S.R.’s ADHD and PTSD did not play a major role in his decision 

to engage in the offenses.
7

The juvenile court concluded that the prosecution had 

carried its burden, and this factor weighs in favor of transfer to 

adult court.

B. Rehabilitation Before Expiration of Juvenile Jurisdiction

In assessing whether S.R. can be rehabilitated prior to the 

expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, the court stated in 

part: “The evidence as to this factor is that [S.R.] has completely 

availed himself of rehabilitative services available in juvenile 

hall, showing a willingness to rehabilitate. However, [S.R.] has 

had difficulty maintaining his progress, regressing at times, and 

being disciplined, e.g., removal from the trust unit for fights, etc. 

Despite the programming in the hall, receiving therapy and 

ADHD medication, [S.R.] has received numerous WSRs. He has 

only recently returned to the trust unit. As testified to by [Leslie 

Stamm, a probation officer], [S.R.] has essentially undergone all 

programming available to [j]uvenile [p]robation at this time, 

except for the ARISE program, which is not an evidence-based 

program. And as indicated by Dr. Ernst, he remains a moderate 

to high risk of continued violence. Dr. Ernst and Mr. Robles 

could not, understandably, predict when [S.R.] could be 

rehabilitated. Indeed, previously, [S.R.] had successfully

completed programming with Mr. Hurst, completing Joven Noble 

and other programs. Nonetheless, he again regressed, turning to 

a gang lifestyle, and incurring numerous gang related contacts 

with law enforcement. Clearly, [S.R.] enmeshed himself in gang 

culture.”

The juvenile court concluded the prosecution has carried its 

burden, and this factor weighs in favor of transfer to adult court.
8

C. Previous Delinquent History

In assessing S.R.’s previous delinquent history, the juvenile 

court stated: “The court has previously summarized [S.R.’s] 

previous delinquent history. While [S.R.] did not have any 

juvenile adjudications before this offense, [S.R.’s] contacts with 

law enforcement increased dramatically before this offense, and 

most, if not all, were gang related, including a pending referral 

for a [Penal Code section] 148 offense, and an incident where he 

was found in possession of a loaded shotgun and handgun while 

with another gang member. As previously discussed, [S.R.’s]

behavior prior to this offense escalated and became more 

sophisticated and serious, including suspected involvement in a 

gang related shooting incident.”

The juvenile court concluded the prosecution had carried its

burden and this factor favors transfer to adult court.

D. Previous Attempts by the Juvenile Court

In assessing previous attempts by the juvenile court to 

rehabilitate S.R., the juvenile court found only minimal evidence 

of such attempts. The court concluded this element is neutral. 

E. Circumstances and Gravity of Alleged Offense

In assessing the circumstances and gravity of the alleged 

offense, the juvenile court incorporated its discussion under 

factor A, the degree of criminal sophistication. The juvenile court 

concluded the prosecution has carried its burden and this factor 

weighs in favor of transfer to adult court.

The juvenile court’s ultimate conclusion, derived from all

the factors listed in section 707, subdivision (a)(3)(A)-(E), is that 

the prosecution carried its burden to show by clear and 

convincing evidence that S.R. is not amenable to rehabilitation 
9

while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The juvenile

court ordered the matter transferred to adult criminal court.

DISCUSSION

I.

Statutory Background

Section 707, subdivision (a)(1), provides, in part: “In any 

case in which a minor is alleged to be a person described in 

Section 602 by reason of the violation, when the minor was 16 

years of age or older, of any offense listed in subdivision (b) or 

any other felony criminal statute, the district attorney or other 

appropriate prosecuting officer may make a motion to transfer 

the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction.”

Section 707, subdivision (a)(3), provides, in part: “In order 

to find that the minor should be transferred to a court of criminal 

jurisdiction, the court shall find by clear and convincing evidence 

that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the 

jurisdiction of the juvenile court. In making its decision, the 

court shall consider the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) to 

(E), inclusive.”

Section 707, subdivision (a)(3), subparagraphs (A) through

(E) provide, in part: 

“(A) [¶] (i) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the 

minor.

“(B) [¶] (i) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the 

expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.

“(C) [¶] (i) The minor’s previous delinquent history.

“(D) [¶] (i) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to 

rehabilitate the minor.

“(E) [¶] (i) The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in 

the petition to have been committed by the minor.”
10

II.

Sufficient Evidence

S.R. contends that the juvenile court’s conclusion that he is 

not amenable to rehabilitation before the expiration of 

jurisdiction is not supported by sufficient evidence.

Where, as here, a finding requires clear and convincing 

evidence, we must determine whether the record contains 

substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could 

have found it highly probable that the fact was true. 

(Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011.) In 

conducting our review, we must view the record in a light most 

favorable to the prevailing party and give appropriate deference 

to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of 

witness, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable 

inference from the evidence. (Id. at pp. 1011-1012.)

Accurate View of the Evidence

S.R. argues that the juvenile court’s conclusion is based on 

inaccurate descriptions of the evidence.

The juvenile court stated that “[S.R.] remains at a 

moderate to high risk of continued violence” as testified by Ernst. 

Ernst previously testified: “[S.R.’s] current violence risk, if he 

were released in the community today, it’s my opinion that it’s 

moderate to high relative to other juvenile offenders.” The court’s 

interpretation of Ernst’s testimony is accurate.

S.R. points out Ernst testified that treatment along with 

maturation will more likely than not “reduce” S.R.’s current 

violent risk by or before age 25. Even assuming by “reduce” 

Ernst meant reduce to an acceptable level, the juvenile court was 

not bound to accept that conclusion.
11

The juvenile court considered S.R.’s traumatic early

childhood. But it also considered that from at least age nine,

Laura F., her partner, and Hurst had intervened to persuade S.R. 

away from gangs and toward making better choices in friends. 

The interventions included role modeling, counseling, and

programs. The result of all that effort was S.R.’s choice to remain 

in his gang and commit murder. Far from being remorseful, S.R. 

wrote lyrics glorifying the murder.

In S.R.’s 14 months in juvenile hall, he participated in

almost every program that probation had to offer. Yet his 

behavior escalated from showing disrespect to staff to engaging in 

gang-related physical violence. In spite of eight years of 

interventions, both outside and inside juvenile hall, S.R. remains 

at moderate to high risk for violence. Perhaps most telling of all, 

Ernst reported that S.R. is unable to consider cutting off relations 

with his peer group, that is, his gang. If S.R. is released at 25 

years old, the evidence shows he will embrace his gang. His gang 

will in turn embrace him as a hero, and further violence from 

S.R. will be inevitable. The evidence before the juvenile court 

fully supports the court’s conclusion that it is highly probable 

S.R. will not be amenable to rehabilitation before the expiration 

of the court’s jurisdiction.

S.R. argues that the second error in the juvenile court’s 

inaccurate description of the evidence is the statement: “As 

testified to by Ms. Stamm, the minor has essentially undergone 

all programming available . . . except for the ARISE program 

. . . .” S.R. argues that in fact he had not undergone the Seeking 

Safety program. But S.R. admits that program was not available 

at the time of the transfer hearing. The court’s statement is 

accurate.
12

S.R. argues that the time available for rehabilitation seems 

to be underestimated. But the juvenile court recognized that S.R. 

committed the crime when he was 16 years old, he was 17 years 

old at the time of the transfer hearing, and he has until he is 25 

years old to be rehabilitated. The court did not underestimate 

the time available for rehabilitation.

S.R. contends that the juvenile court improperly relied on 

the lack of an evidence-based program.

The juvenile court stated that S.R. participated in 

essentially all of the programs except for the ARISE program 

which is not evidence-based. S.R. claims that ARISE is a gang 

intervention program, and that there are no evidence-based gang 

intervention programs. S.R. concludes that transferring minors 

to adult court because there is no evidence-based gang 

intervention program effectively precludes juvenile court 

jurisdiction for a specified class of juvenile offenders.

But the juvenile court did not order S.R. transferred 

because of the lack of an evidence-based gang intervention 

program. It ordered S.R. transferred because in spite of years of 

interventions he remains violent and attached to his gang, and it 

is highly probable that will not change by the time he attains 25 

years of age.

S.R. argues that his previous failures to rehabilitate do not 

show that additional programming would be ineffective. S.R. 

suggests ARISE, which has not been shown to be effective, and 

Seeking Safety, a program not available at the time of the 

transfer hearing. But S.R. has already taken all the other 

programs that probation has to offer. The juvenile court could 

reasonably conclude an extra program or two is not going to turn 

the tide.
13

Moreover, the juvenile court can only predict S.R.’s future 

by considering his past performance and his resolve to reform. 

As to S.R.’s past performance, his risk of violence remains 

moderate to high. As to his resolve to reform, he cannot even 

consider leaving his gang. 

III.

Juvenile Court’s Understanding of Law

S.R. contends that the transfer order must be reversed 

because the juvenile court relied on an erroneous understanding 

of the applicable law.

Effective January 1, 2023, section 707, subdivision (a)(3),

was amended to prevent transfer unless the court found by clear 

and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to 

rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. 

(Stats. 2022, ch. 330, § 1.) The amendment changed the statute 

in three ways. First, it changed the burden of proof from a 

preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence. 

Second, it raised whether the minor is amenable to rehabilitation 

while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court from one of five 

factors to the ultimate question. Third, it requires the court to 

state the reasons for its finding that the minor is not amenable to 

rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

(In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 415-416.)

Here the record shows the juvenile court well understood 

the applicable law. The court considered the five factors required 

by section 707, subdivision (a)(3)(A)-(E). It found four of the 

factors favored transfer and one was neutral. The court’s 

statement of decision shows the court well understood that the

ultimate question was whether S.R. can be rehabilitated before 

the juvenile court loses jurisdiction. The court properly weighed 
14

the five factors and found the prosecution proved its case for 

transfer by clear and convincing evidence. The court clearly 

stated its reasons for the finding.

DISPOSITION

The judgment (order) is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.
Gustavo E. Lavayen, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.