1 Filed 6/18/14 In re Rafael S. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO

In re Rafael S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. Rafael S., Defendant and Appellant. A140698
(San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JW106568)

Rafael S., born on January 14, 1996, wa s a minor at the time of the subject proceedings below. He appeals from the juven ile court’s January 3, 2014 order, in which the court denied his request to be placed in the Juvenile Collaborative Re-Entry Unit Program (JCRU), placing him in the Serious O ffender Program (SOP) instead, subject to all of the programs and recommendations of JC RU still being provided to him. The court
also ordered him to wear an alcohol monito r, called a “S.C.R.A.M.” monitor, on his leg, over his counsel’s objection. Rafael S.’s appellate counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). In accordance with Wende and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, Rafael S. was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issu es are presented for
review and affirm the court’s order.2 DISCUSSION
In his Wende brief, Rafael S. incorporates by re ference the statement of the case
and statement of facts contained in another appeal he filed, A139680, which has been dismissed. That briefing and the record ac companying this appeal indicate that in November 2010, the San Francisco District Attorney filed a petition pursuant to Welfare
and Institutions Code section 6 02, in which it was alleged that Rafael S. had committed a
number of criminal offenses.
Several documents contained in the record from this time period indicate Rafael S. had a significant substance abuse problem that included alcohol consumption. A November 2010 detention hearing report states that “mother believes that Rafael engages in substance abuse (ie: marijuana, alcohol and cocaine),” which the probation department repeated in a response to a mo tion for release report a short time later. (Italics added.) A needs and strengths su mmary by a social worker with the San Francisco AIIM Higher Program states that Ra fael S. had a “pervasive substance abuse” problem. The probation department’s jurisdic tional hearing report states, “[Rafael S.’s] behavior is so out of control with major subs tance abuse that . . . [h e] is most certainty [sic] doomed to recidivate.” In November 2010, Rafael S. admitted to committing felony grand theft and to a weapon-related enhancement; the court sustai ned these allegations and dismissed the others contained in the petition. The cour t declared him a ward, ordered out-of-home placement, and put him on fo rmal probation, subject to various conditions. Rafael S. ran away from his first pla cement, was arrested, and was detained in juvenile hall. The court approved a change in his medication in an effort to control his extreme agitation. Several months later, he was placed in Normative Youth Services in Wyoming, a highly structured program for male youth. In May 2012, he successfully completed the program and was a llowed to return to his mother’s home on a trial basis. In November 2012, the court placed Rafael S. with his mother.3 In late October 2012, Rafael S. was shot eight times in a shooting that took the life of his companion. He was hospitalized in in tensive care for about a week, and after that
continued to need medical care. In January 2013, an arrest warrant was issued for Rafael S., who had run away from his mother’s home. In February 2013, he was arrested and detained in juvenile hall. The San Francisco District Attorney f iled a second petition pursuant to Welfare
and Institutions Code section 6 02 and shortly thereafter, Rafa el S. admitted that he had been in possession of live amm unition, a misdemeanor, and ha d willfully and unlawfully resisted, delayed, and obstructed a peace officer in the discharge of the officer’s duties. The court found these allegations as true and dismissed the others contained in the petition.
The court continued Rafael S.’s detention and ordered that he be placed in an instate placement. He was placed in a group home on March 28, 2013, but terminated from it a few weeks later because, the probation de partment reported, he had made several threats against staff, been ex tremely defiant rega rding home rules and responsibilities, said he had bullets with his probation officer’s name on them, and threatened to get guns and shoot everybody at the group home. Rafael S. was placed in juvenile hall and or dered to be detained by the court. For the next several months, the probation depart ment then looked fo r, but was unable to locate, another in-state or out-of-state placeme nt for him. In November 2013, a contested placement hearing was held. Rafa el S. was placed in juvenile hall, to remain there until his 18th birthday on January 14, 2014. On December 16, 2013 , JCRU filed a re-entry plan that contained specific plans
and recommendations for Rafael S. that were devised with the participation of Rafael S., his mother, a social worker wi th the Center on Juvenile a nd Criminal Justice, a case coordinator, and a court-appointed attorney. The plan was to releas e him to his mother when he became elig ible for release on January 6, 2014. Rafael S. was reported to say he was glad he had been placed in juvenile hall this time, that it had changed him, that he wanted to make his mother proud, wanted a family of his own, and wanted to become a4 fireman. It was further repor ted that he had obtained his G.E.D. and was going to begin classes at City College of San Francisco upon his release in January 2014, and would receive referrals that would help him to l ook for part-time work and obtain therapy and substance abuse assistance, including “wrap aro und services.” The report further stated that, “Rafael understands he will have to wear the S.C.R.A.M. alcohol monitoring system and submit to random UA testing” at the discretion of a JCRU probation officer. On December 17, 2013, the co urt, Judge Bolanos presidi ng, ordered Rafael S. to be released January 6, 2014, and enroll in, and attend, the C ity College of San Francisco as of January 10, 2014. The matter was con tinued to January 3, 20 14, so that he could appear in Department 3 before Judge Br eall, who oversaw JCRU cases, for a JCRU meeting to be conducted. The court also orde red that, if Rafael S. was released before that time, he was to wear both a GPS an d S.C.R.A.M. monitor, along with other
conditions. Rafael S.’s counse l objected to the S.C.R.A.M. monitor because he did not see “any real history of having any alcohol i ssues” and thought that wearing a monitor on each leg was “pretty extreme for somebody that is going to be starting college.” Prior to the January 3, 2014 , hearing, Rafael S.’s prev iously filed challenge to Judge Breall pursuant to Code of Civil Procedur e section 170.6 became an issue. First, JCRU denied his counsel’s request that Rafa el S. receive JCRU support in a courtroom outside of the designated collaborative courtroom sessions, stating it was outside the protocol of the JCRU model. Then, apparently because of Ra fael S.’s challenge to Judge Breall, his matter was transferred to anot her judge and department, where a hearing occurred on January 3, 2014. At that January 3, 2014, hearing, the pr obation department informed the court that
all of the JCRU services that had been reco mmended could be provided by the SOP, but that the case managers would be different. Ra fael S.’s counsel obje cted to his placement in the SOP program because Rafael S. might have a different probation officer than the one he was familiar with, Rafael S. did not need the “heavy hammer” of the SOP, and he
was not a serious offender. Counsel further objected that it was unfair that Rafael S. could not be placed in JCRU because of hi s challenge to Judge Breall, the only judge5 who handled JCRU matters, and sought an opport unity to further brief the matter before Judge Bolanos. Counsel also obj ected to the S.C.R.A.M. monitor because of “a lack of prior demonstrated alcohol abuse” and R.S.’s medical condition, which was such that adding a device with additio nal weight would affect his ambulatory issues. The matter submitted, the court rejected the request of Rafael S.’s counsel to brief
the JCRU issue further before Judge Bolanos because it sugg ested forum shopping, given the tentative ruling that he be placed in the SOP. The court ordered that Rafael S. would be released on January 6, 2014 , and be placed under the superv ision of the SOP such that he could benefit from all the programs and recommendations provided by JCRU. The court also refused to disturb Judge Bolanos’s determination that Rafael S. should wear a S.C.R.A.M. monitor, subject to Rafael S. bei ng able to raise any medical evidence before Judge Bolanos if it was detrimental for him to wear it. The court also ordered that the out-of-home placement order remain in effect in order for Rafael S. to be eligible for “AB12” programs as Rafael S. wanted. R.S. filed a timely notice of appeal rega rding the court’s having “reversed Judge Bolanos order from December 17, 2013, regard ing minor’s participation and receipt of community-based servi ces in the [JCRU].”6 DISPOSITION Having independently reviewed the entire record, we find no arguable issue and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.

_ ____________ ____________ Brick, J.*

We concur:

_____________ ____________ Kline, P.J.

_____________ ____________ Richman, J.

* Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.