Court Opinion

ID: 9907173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 20:02:49.463709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:56:34.261190
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/5/23 In re Sebastian C. CA1/4
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 FOUR

 In re SEBASTIAN C., a Person
 Coming Under the Juvenile Court
 Law.

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    A167599
 v.
                                                                        (Solano County
 SEBASTIAN C.,
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. J45299)
           Defendant and Appellant.

         Sebastian C. appeals an order entered under Welfare and Institutions
Code1 section 875, subdivision (e)(1)(A) reducing his baseline term of
confinement in a secure youth treatment facility by two months. He contends
that the juvenile court abused its discretion by not reducing his baseline term
by the full six months permitted under the statute. We affirm the juvenile
court’s order.

         1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code

unless otherwise noted.
                                 BACKGROUND
   I. Section 875: Secure Track Juvenile Commitment
      In 2020, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 823 (2019–2020 Reg.
Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 337), which shifted to county governments the
responsibility for all youths adjudged a ward of the court. Section 736.5
provided for the closure of the state’s Division of Juvenile Justice, which was
“the state’s most restrictive placement for its most severe juvenile offenders”
(In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 902), and the devolution of its
responsibilities onto the counties. The county-level equivalent of a
commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice is a commitment to a county-
operated secure youth treatment facility. (§ 875.)
      Under section 875, subdivision (b)(1), when committing a ward to a
secure youth treatment facility, the juvenile court is directed to “set a
baseline term of confinement” that represents “the time in custody necessary
to meet the developmental and treatment needs of the ward and to prepare
the ward for discharge to a period of probation supervision in the
community.”2 Following the ward’s commitment, Section 875,
subdivision (e)(1)(A) requires the juvenile court to hold progress review
hearings every six months, at which the court evaluates the ward’s progress
on the rehabilitation plan and determines whether to modify the baseline
term of confinement. In making its determination, the court “shall consider
the recommendations of counsel, the probation department and any
behavioral, educational, or other specialists having information relevant to
the ward’s progress.” (Ibid.) At the conclusion of the review hearing, the

      2 The baseline term of confinement is distinguishable from the

maximum term of confinement, which represents “the longest term of
confinement in a facility that the ward may serve.” (§ 875, subd. (c).)

                                        2
court “may order that the ward remain in custody for the remainder of the
baseline term or may order that the ward’s baseline term or previously
modified baseline term be modified downward by a reduction of confinement
time not to exceed six months for each review hearing.” (Ibid.)
      California Rules of Court, rule 5.806, which implements section 875,
adopts a matrix of offense-based classifications to be applied by the juvenile
courts in all counties in setting the baseline confinement terms, and explains
that the downward modification of the baseline term by up to six months at
the review hearings is intended to “provide an incentive for each youth to
engage productively with the individual rehabilitation plan approved by the
court.” The Advisory Committee Comment to rule 5.806 notes that the
“primary goals that should serve as objectives for the court when setting a
baseline term [are] positive youth development, public and community safety,
and the establishment of flexible and fair commitment terms.” The Comment
continues, “A primary objective of a commitment to a secure youth treatment
facility must be an evidence-based and trauma-responsive effort to promote
healthy adolescent development. This objective will be achieved by providing
positive incentives for prosocial behavior, focusing on the treatment needs of
the youth to ensure healing and rehabilitation, and with a persistent focus on
the end goal of successful reentry into the community. The flexibility
inherent in the matrix is intended to result in a baseline term of commitment
that is no longer than necessary to protect the public but is of sufficient
length to assure the victim and the community that the harm committed can
be redressed by the juvenile justice system in a developmentally appropriate
manner and thus reduce the need for the youth to be transferred to criminal
court.”

                                        3
   II. Factual and Procedural Background
      In August 2022, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, then 14-year-old
Sebastian admitted having committed voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,
§ 192, subd. (a)) and having personally used a firearm in the commission of
the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)). The parties stipulated that the
facts contained in the initial detention report constituted the factual basis for
his plea. According to the detention report, Sebastian and the 14-year-old
victim arranged to fight each other at the railroad tracks early in the
morning on July 25, 2021. Police officers found the victim’s body on the
railroad tracks at around 2:30 a.m., having been shot twice in the torso.
When officers located Sebastian that afternoon, they recovered a 9-millimeter
handgun in his backpack containing bullets that matched the casings
recovered at the railroad tracks. The parties also stipulated to a four-year
base commitment term at Reaching Into Successful Endeavors (RISE), the
county’s secure youth treatment facility.
      The juvenile court accepted Sebastian’s admission, adjudged Sebastian
a ward of the court, granted probation on various terms and conditions, and
committed him to RISE for a four-year baseline term.
      The rehabilitation plan adopted for Sebastian identifies his targeted
areas of need as including mental health services, substance abuse services,
cognitive behavioral intervention, anger management, individual counseling,
family services, education support services, employment skills development
and independent living skills development. The plan notes that Sebastian
has “endured significant trauma that stems from his exposure to the child
welfare system, homelessness, drug addiction, poverty, domestic violence,
abuse, and overall familial dysfunction” and that he “may benefit from
services that aim to address his trauma and provide him with the skills and

                                        4
abilities to manage difficult emotions, build healthy relationships, and
improve his decision making.” The plan identifies the 10 specific programs
that Sebastian would be offered to meet his rehabilitation needs.
      Shortly after his commitment, the probation department submitted an
interim report indicating that Sebastian was availing himself of the services
provided and was engaged in a “multitude of interventions.” The report
concludes that, while Sebastian was generally demonstrating positive
behavior in the program, his “participation in group settings is inconsistent.
At times he actively participates, and other times he fails to complete
homework assignments and presents as argumentative and resistant.” The
report also notes that RISE staff had reported that Sebastian “is easily
influenced by his peers.”
      At the hearing on the interim report, the juvenile court judge
congratulated Sebastian on a “really good report.” The court continued, “I’m
pleased that you’re doing everything that you possibly can to be able to reach
that six-month point, where you can step down six months. Because if you
continue this way that’s what will happen.”
      In advance of the six-month review hearing, the probation department
prepared a report (six-month review report) detailing Sebastian’s progress on
his rehabilitation plan and recommending a two-month reduction in his
baseline term of confinement. The six-month review report indicates that
Sebastian had completed two cognitive behavior activities that targeted his
identified needs in the areas of anger, antisocial thinking, antisocial
associated, empathy, and emotional regulation. He was participating in
weekly restorative justice sessions, meeting with his assigned mentor,
participating in the Omega Men’s Group, and regularly meeting with a
transitional case manager to complete independent living and job skills

                                        5
workshops. Sebastian had earned A and B grades during his most recent
quarter at Evergreen Academy and obtained a 3.48 GPA. Sebastian’s
behavior had improved in group settings since the interim report was
prepared and there had been no recent reports of Sebastian failing to
complete homework or engaging negatively with staff. The six-month review
report also indicates, however, that during the most recent multidisciplinary
team meeting, “program staff reported [that Sebastian] continues to struggle
to fit in with his peers. He requires reminders to not talk over or interrupt
others during group. Furthermore, it was reported that in his attempt to
impress his peers during group sessions he fabricates stories and glorifies
antisocial behavior. It appears he is motivated to fit-in and be accepted by
his peers. This may be attributed to a lack of maturity and a need to
strengthen his social skills and ability to adequately respond to peer
pressure. Overall, he does well in treatment but there remains room for
growth and skill development.”
      At the review hearing, Sebastian requested a six-month reduction of
the four-year baseline term. The hearing was continued so that the parties
could file written briefing on the requested downward adjustment. The court
denied Sebastian’s request and instead reduced Sebastian’s baseline term by
two months.
                                    DISCUSSION
      Sebastian contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by
reducing his baseline term of confinement by two rather than six months.
We review the juvenile court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. (§ 875,
subd. (e)(1)(A) [“The determination of whether the baseline term will be
modified . . . is a judicial decision” subject to “the juvenile court’s discretion”].)

                                          6
      In ordering the two-month reduction in Sebastian’s term of
confinement, the juvenile court properly evaluated Sebastian’s progress in
relation to his rehabilitation plan. The court noted that one of Sebastian’s
highest areas of need “appeared to be peer relations.” The court explained
that the interim report indicated that Sebastian was “easily influenced by his
peers” and that, based on the six-month review report, he “still struggles to
fit in with peers.” The court reiterated that he requires “reminders not to
talk over or interrupt others during group; that he’s fabricating stories and
glorifying antisocial behavior to impress his peers; he is motivated to fit in
and be accepted by his peers.” The court observed, “This goes to the high
need area of peer relations. It is not enough just to have a checklist, and then
go through the checklist and say that he is doing these things. I need to
know that he is appropriately actually using those lessons that he’s learning.
So, it’s not just understanding, but that he’s absorbing and then effectuating
what it is that he’s learning. [¶] I’m not finding that that is what is
happening. Some of it is. Some of it he is doing. But he is not doing
everything that he needs to, because he cannot be released unless those areas
of need in that individualized rehabilitation plan have been met.”
      Sebastian contends that his difficulty fitting in with his peers does not
support the court’s conclusion that he was only partially compliant with his
rehabilitation plan. He argues that the finding that he was “fabricating
stories and glorifying antisocial behavior” is not supported by substantial
evidence because the six-month review report did not disclose the actual
fabricated stories or glorifying statements. The absence of specific examples
of his conduct does not, however, render the RISE staff’s observations
speculative or diminish entirely their evidentiary value. The two reports
prepared by the probation department, taken together, contain substantial

                                        7
evidence that over the course of his first six months at RISE, Sebastian was
struggling in his relationships with his peers.
      Sebastian’s related argument that the court improperly relied on the
probation department’s recommendation that his term of confinement be
reduced by two months as “evidence” of Sebastian’s partial compliance with
his plan is unsupported. Nothing in the record suggests that the court relied
on the probation department’s recommendation rather than the information
in the report in reaching a conclusion regarding Sebastian’s progress towards
rehabilitation.
      Next, Sebastian argues that his “lack of maturity and a need to
strengthen his social skills,” cited by the probation department as an
explanation for his struggles with his peers, are not governed by the
rehabilitation plan. We disagree. Sebastian’s rehabilitation plan expressly
notes that he would benefit from services that “provide him with the skills
and abilities to manage difficult emotions, build healthy relationships, and
improve his decision making.” These underdeveloped social skills are what
the probation department determined may be causing Sebastian’s struggles
with his peers.
      Contrary to Sebastian’s argument, the court’s finding that Sebastian
“still struggles” with peer relations does not conflict with the court’s
characterization of the interim report as a “very good report.” The interim
report clearly described Sebastian’s struggles with peer pressure at that time.
The court’s approval and encouragement of his progress did not lessen the
real concerns expressed in the report. Sebastian’s subsequent behavior
demonstrated that the concerns still needed to be resolved.
      We are also unpersuaded by Sebastian’s argument that the court’s
finding of “partial compliance” conflicts with the evidence that he had

                                        8
completed or was participating in each of the programs assigned to him. As
Sebastian notes, the probation department reported that he completed the
“What Got Me Here” assignment that, together with the other interventions,
was intended to “enhance [Sebastian’s] skills and abilities to . . . respond to
peer pressure. . . .” But, as the trial court noted, Sebastian still struggled
with peer relationships despite completing this assignment, as well as
participating in others. The trial court correctly recognized that the
adjustments authorized at the review hearings are not automatic based on
the completion of assigned programs. As set forth above, the baseline term
represents the time in custody necessary to rehabilitate the ward. At each
review hearing, the juvenile court judge must continue to ensure that the
baseline term of commitment “is no longer than necessary to meet the
developmental needs of the youth and to prepare the youth for discharge to a
period of probation supervision in the community.” (Rule 5.806, subd. (b).)
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that, as of the
six-month review hearing, Sebastian would likely need the remainder of his
four-year term, less two months, to complete his rehabilitation.
      Contrary to Sebastian’s argument, the juvenile court’s decision does not
disregard the “hallmark features of youth.” Sebastian argues, “It is now a
matter of both scientific and legal fact that the disabilities of the developing
brain common to all youth share ‘hallmark features’ of immaturity and
susceptibility to peer pressure, and that these features show enhanced
capacity for rehabilitation. [Citation] Sebastian’s struggle to fit in and be
accepted by the other justice-involved incarcerated teenagers adheres to this
reality.” It is precisely because Sebastian’s behavior reflects these common
features of youth that additional interventions and skill-building are

                                        9
necessary so that he can learn to modify his behavior and be safely
discharged into the community.
      Finally, the court’s reduction of his baseline term by two months does
not conflict with the purposes of juvenile justice realignment. Sebastian
argues that his “hard work and good behavior should have been rewarded
with a six-month reduction in baseline term based on an individualized
assessment of his progress.” The juvenile court conducted an individualized
assessment of Sebastian’s progress and rewarded his hard work and good
behavior with a two-month reduction in his baseline term. The court did not
abuse its discretion in declining his request for a greater adjustment.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
                                            GOLDMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BROWN, P. J.
HIRAMOTO, J. *

* Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, assigned

by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.

                                       10