Court Opinion

ID: 9390527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 18:02:39.457893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:35.248509
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/27/23 In re Z.R. CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re Z.R., a Person Coming                                    B322723
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
______________________________                                  Los Angeles County
THE PEOPLE,                                                     Superior Court No.
                                                                FJ57650
         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

Z.R.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, Christina L. Hill, Judge. Affirmed.

     Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                        ____________________
       After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm the disposition and
judgment.
       A petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602
alleged Z.R., then 14 years old, committed attempted murder
with malice aforethought (Penal Code, §§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)).
The case arose after Z.R. shot an off-duty police officer in the
head.
       Z.R. pleaded no contest to this count, which the juvenile
court found true.
       At the contested disposition hearing, Z.R.’s counsel argued
Z.R. had “exceptional” educational needs and had been diagnosed
with borderline intellectual functioning. Counsel also argued the
boy had been amenable to treatment and had made great
progress during the year or so he spent detained. The record
generally supported this argument, to a point. Then it showed
Z.R.’s negative conduct was “escalating rapidly” under
supervision.
       The victim wrote a statement describing his continued pain
and worry after the shooting and requesting “the maximum
sentence allowed.” He made a similar statement at the hearing.
       The probation officer recommended Z.R. be placed in a
secure youth treatment facility instead of the “relaxed” program
at the Dorothy Kirby Center. The People adopted this
recommendation.
       Z.R.’s counsel argued against this recommendation and for
placement at the Center. Counsel’s Disposition Memorandum
noted that, per Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, the
baseline term for Z.R.’s infraction would be four years.

                                2
       The juvenile court recognized the Center typically kept
people for only six to nine months. The court noted Z.R.’s special
needs, gang association, significant substance abuse, unstable
childhood, and “reckless, violent behavior” the morning of the
shooting, among other things. It concluded Z.R.’s “problems are
so deep-seated and long-standing that, I think, it’s not reasonable
to believe that Dorothy Kirby can provide what he needs in the
time that he needs to fix these things.” The court rejected other
“camp” options as inappropriate and lacking the therapeutic
interventions Z.R. needed.
       The court ordered Z.R. to a secure youth treatment facility
for the baseline term of four years and a maximum confinement
period of seven years (the middle term). It reasoned this was
Z.R.’s “last best hope to change a lifetime of bad things happening
to him” and would give Z.R. the help he needs before going back
into society. The court found “a less restrictive, alternative
disposition for the youth is unsuitable.”
       The court awarded 314 days of custody credits.
       Z.R. appealed the disposition, and we appointed counsel to
represent him. Appointed counsel examined the record and filed
an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review
the record independently under Wende. Counsel also advised
Z.R. of his right to file a supplemental brief for us to consider.
Z.R. did not file a response.
       We have examined the entire appellate record. We are
satisfied Z.R.’s counsel fully complied with counsel’s
responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (See Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)
///
///

                                3
                      DISPOSITION
     The judgment and disposition order are affirmed.

                                        WILEY, J.

We concur:

             STRATTON, P. J.

             VIRAMONTES, J

                               4