Court Opinion

ID: 9917253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 19:02:12.268956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:59.510578
License: Public Domain

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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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                                2d Juv. Crim. No. B327505
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                              (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.
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-in-
law 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

                                  2
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

                                 3
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

                                4
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

                                 5
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.

                                  6
       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.

                                  7
                   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

                                 8
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.”

                                 9
                                  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.

                                10
         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.

                                11
       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.

                                12
       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

                                13
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.

                                14
                  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.