Court Opinion

ID: 9889229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 23:03:12.043373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:13.046282
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/6/23 In re R.A. CA1/1
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 ONE

 In re R.A., a Person Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 THE PEOPLE,                                                            A165275, A166525

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Contra Costa County
 v.                                                                     Super. Ct. No. J18-01083)
 R.A.,
           Defendant and Appellant.

         In this consolidated appeal, appellant R.A. challenges separate juvenile
court orders following his commitment to a secure youth treatment facility
(SYTF) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 875. Appellant
contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his motion
for a transfer into a less restrictive placement and for a reduction in his
baseline term of confinement. He further contends the juvenile court erred in
refusing to order programming to assist in his rehabilitation.
         After briefing was complete on appeal, the trial court ordered appellant
placed into a less restrictive program and released him on home supervision,
but denied his request to reduce his baseline term. In supplemental briefs
requested by this court, the parties agree the issue of appellant’s placement is
moot. Appellant requests we nonetheless exercise our discretion to consider
the issue.
      We decline to exercise our discretion to decide the placement issue on
the merits. As to the other challenges raised on appeal, appellant has not
shown the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we will affirm.
             I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. First Sustained Petition: Assault and Resisting Arrest
      In November 2018, police detained appellant and another youth for
burglarizing a car. Officers found appellant in possession of a window-
breaking device and cocaine, and seized a cell phone and cash from his
pocket. The boys were cited, transported home, and released to their parents.
Shortly after appellant returned home, dispatch advised officers that
appellant was acting out violently. When officers returned to his house,
appellant was wielding a hammer and trying to access a locked door, behind
which were his parents and nine-year-old sibling. During his outburst,
appellant had broken several items around the home, damaged a doorknob,
and hit large holes in the walls and bedroom door. Officers detained
appellant and recovered a hammer and several items of red clothing from his
room. They saw “ ‘MS-13’ ” written on the mirrors and walls.
      Appellant pled no contest to a felony violation of Penal Code
section 245, subdivision (a)(4) and a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code
section 148, subdivision (a)(1). In January 2019, the court adjudged
appellant a ward of the court and committed him to a nine-month program at
Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF).
      In August 2019, following his OAYRF commitment, Appellant
sustained a probation violation for failing to check in with OAYRF staff
during home visits, failing to obey curfew, and absconding from the program.

                                       2
        In February 2020, the probation department charged appellant with a
violation of his probation conditions. While proceedings on that petition were
pending, appellant was arrested in May 2020, for various offenses, including
possession of a firearm by a felon and unlawful possession of live
ammunition. After appellant admitted his probation violations, the court
ordered him to complete all phases of the Youth Offender Treatment Program
(YOPT) in June 2020. He sustained another probation violation for fighting
in October 2020, and was ordered to serve an additional 30 days in YOTP.
        In April 2021, appellant was released to home supervision as part of
YOTP’s 120-day aftercare program. Several months later, the court ordered
him released from home supervision.
B. Second Sustained Petition: BART Assault
        In September 2021, approximately two months after he was released
from home supervision, appellant and another person attacked a stranger on
the platform of a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. They hit the
victim in the back of the head, kicked him in the head, and stabbed him in
the thigh. The incident was captured on video. Appellant was arrested on a
BART car just after the incident.
        The juvenile court committed appellant to Briones Youth Academy
(BYA) Secure Pathway for a baseline term of two years for the sustained
Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4) offense. The court concluded a less
restrictive alternative would be unsuitable based on the factors in Welfare
and Institutions Code1 section 875, subdivision (a)(3), including (1) the
severity of the offense and appellant’s “very significant” role; (2) his previous
delinquent history and the adequacy and success of previous attempts at

        1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code.

                                         3
rehabilitation; (3) the programming, treatment, and education at BYA would
meet appellant’s needs; (4) the less restrictive alternative program would not
meet the goals of rehabilitation and community safety; and (5) the BYA
commitment was appropriate because appellant was on the older end of the
spectrum for juvenile justice and his mental health needs would be satisfied
by extensive mental health treatment available at BYA. The court found the
BYA commitment would meet appellant’s needs because, among other things,
it offered an individually tailored rehabilitative plan, job training, evidence-
based programming, and a secure environment where appellant could receive
around-the-clock supervision, but also positive role modeling and conflict
resolution skills that would help him develop a prosocial reentry into the
community.
C. April 2022 Hearing
      At the six-month review hearing in April 2022, appellant requested the
juvenile court modify his baseline term and reduce it by six months under
section 875, subdivision (e)(1). Appellant’s counsel emphasized that
appellant’s behavior had been “gold and silver,” and argued he would have
been eligible for a reduction in time credits had he been committed to the
Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). She argued appellant had
demonstrated “substantial compliance” toward his case plan, had been “gold”
for 21 out of 24 weeks, and was deserving of a six-month reduction in the
baseline commitment. Counsel argued the importance of positive
reinforcement for good behavior and as an additional incentive, asked that
appellant be allowed to attend carpentry classes at Laney College.
      The prosecutor acknowledged appellant had done “tremendously well”
and his performance in custody had been “remarkable,” but argued a
downward departure in the baseline was not warranted due to the

                                        4
seriousness of his crime. The probation officer agreed appellant had
“progressed significantly,” but contended any reduction in the baseline terms
should be considered at the next six-month review.
      The court denied the request for a reduction in the baseline term,
finding it to be premature and that appellant needed to make more progress
with the available services at BYA. The court also declined appellant’s
request to attend carpentry classes in person, and maintained all prior
orders, setting the next review hearing for six months out.
D. October 2022 Hearing
      Before the next review hearing, appellant’s counsel filed a motion to
modify disposition under section 875, subdivision (f). Appellant requested a
“ ‘step down’ ” placement to a less restrictive program, arguing he had made
“substantial compliance towards [the] goals” of his individual rehabilitation
plan (IRP).
      Appellant’s probation officer filed a report with the court ahead of the
review hearing. The report noted appellant had completed “five of nine
interactive journaling books, Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Substance
Abuse (CBISA), Victim Empathy, and two of three components of Aggression
Replacement Training (ART).” It stated that for the remainder of the BYA
program, appellant would continue to work on interactive journaling, “while
completing Boys’ Council, Advanced Practice, and the last component of
ART.” The report further noted appellant was meeting regularly with his
therapist and had maintained “silver and gold” status. It further noted,
however, that appellant had four incident reports for gang-related behavior,
including gang writing on the inside of his cell door and gang-related
exchanges with peers. The report noted that although appellant follows the
majority of rules within the program, he is “deeply entrenched in gang

                                       5
activity” which is “affecting his progress to make better choices.” The
probation department recommended that all prior orders remain in effect and
that the court set another six-month review hearing.
      Appellant’s probation officer filed a memo ahead of the review hearing
updating the juvenile court on appellant’s most recent progress. The memo
indicated appellant still needed to “complete the following classes: four
interactive journaling books, Anger Control, Advanced Practice, and
Financial Literacy,” and recommended he continue his commitment to secure
pathway to continue his treatment classes in an effort to aid in his
rehabilitation.
      At the review hearing in October 2022, appellant’s counsel called the
juvenile hall institution supervisor, Brian Horace, to testify. Horace testified
about the structure of BYA, appellant’s IRP and progress in secure track at
BYA, the classes he had taken, and his current programming. Horace
acknowledged no classes had been offered to appellant since July 2022.2 He
testified the “Free Your Mind”3 curriculum might be available in the near
future but it depended on staffing and training. Horace was very familiar
with appellant and testified it was a “pleasure” to supervise him. Regarding
the recent gang-related incidents, Horace expressed concern these had
escalated since appellant’s commitment to BYA and noticed “a different level
of sophistication that didn’t exist before.” Horace described “the tagging and
the gang stuff” as a “new issue.”

      2 Horace also explained that when classes are not available to a youth

on secure track, they continue to attend college and do group programming.
      3 “Free Your Mind” is an evidence-based training program available

only for secure track use.

                                       6
      Based on Horace’s testimony and evidentiary exhibits regarding
appellant’s programming and progress toward the goal of his IRP, appellant’s
counsel requested a step down to a less restrictive program. Counsel
acknowledged the concern about the gang-related behavior, but noted
appellant was not receiving “anything addressing that . . . specific need,”
which would be addressed in the step-down program counsel was proposing.
Appellant’s counsel also asked the court to reduce the baseline term, arguing
appellant needed positive reinforcement.
      The prosecutor opposed both requests, arguing the attack on the BART
passenger was an “extremely vicious attack.” The prosecutor also pointed to
the gang-related incidents and argued appellant still had programming to
complete before the probation department would consider him “fully
rehabilitated.”
      A probation officer told the court that while appellant had made
progress, probation’s position was that he still needed to complete the
programming in the secure track program. Specifically, appellant had four
interactive journals to complete, as well as advanced practice and financial
literacy programming.
      The juvenile court denied appellant’s step-down request, finding that
appellant had made “substantial progress” but had “significant additional
portions of his rehabilitation plan” that would be helpful to his rehabilitation.
The court cited two factors in denying relief: (1) the evidence of appellant’s
current gang involvement and nature of his prior crimes, and (2) the lack of
family support if he were released into the community, which the court
acknowledged was not his fault. The court noted that despite “programming
well” while in custody, appellant had a history of committing crimes and
other probation violations on release. The court observed, “So the problem is

                                        7
not his programming. He’s very good at that. The problem is that, when he’s
back out in the community, he poses a severe danger to the public.” For the
same reasons, the court denied the request to reduce his baseline term under
section 875, subdivision (e)(1).
      Noting appellant had not received programming since July, counsel
also asked the court how to address the lack of programming. The court
suggested counsel “address it with Probation” and stated the court would also
ask that probation provide programming. The court declined to order
“Probation on what specific actions to take” but invited counsel to file a
motion or “take the actions you deem appropriate.”
      Appellant timely appealed from both the April and October 2022
orders. We consolidated the appeals for all purposes.
                               II. DISCUSSION
      Appellant contends the juvenile court erred by (1) denying his motion to
transfer him from an SYTF to a less restrictive placement, (2) denying his
motion to reduce his baseline term, and (3) failing to order probation to
provide additional programming to assist in his rehabilitation.
A. Mootness
      Both parties agree that the issue of whether the juvenile court abused
its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to be transferred into a less
restrictive placement is moot in light of the trial court’s September 11, 2023
order placing appellant under home supervision. Appellant nonetheless
urges us to exercise our discretion to decide the issue on the merits to provide
guidance to juvenile courts about the implementation of the new secure track
statutory scheme because it is an important issue of public interest that is
likely to evade appellate review.

                                       8
      “ ‘A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical
impact or cannot provide the parties with effective relief.’ ” (In re Stephon L.
(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1231.) Generally, moot claims will not be
addressed on the merits since “it is a court’s duty to decide ‘ “ ‘actual
controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give
opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare
principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case
before it.’ ” ’ ” (In re David B. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 633, 644 (David B.).)
Here, as the parties agree, appellant has been ordered out of SYTF and
therefore reversal of the juvenile court’s order would have no practical effect.
This aspect of the appeal is therefore moot.
      Nonetheless, appellant urges us to exercise our discretion to decide the
issue on the merits. We may do so, for example, if “[t]he issue ‘is likely to
recur, might otherwise evade appellate review, and is of continuing public
interest.’ ” (People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 646.) Appellant contends
we should address the merits of his claim because the creation of the secure
track system is a key component of “ ‘sweeping juvenile justice realignment
reforms’ ” enacted by Senate Bill No. 823 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) and, to date,
no published decision has defined the meaning of how a youth makes a
showing of “ ‘substantial progress’ ” toward the goals of an individual
rehabilitation plan as required for a step-down motion under section 875,
subdivision (f)(1).
      We decline to exercise our discretion to decide this matter on the
merits. Appellant’s argument that the juvenile court abused its discretion in
failing to order a less restrictive placement turns on highly specific
information regarding the particular facts of this case including his
rehabilitative efforts and progress at BYA, his extensive record of prior

                                         9
placements and performance on juvenile probation, and his continuing gang
involvement. Because our decision in this case would depend on
circumstances particular to appellant not on general questions of law whose
resolution might provide helpful guidance in other cases, we decline to
address it further. (See David B., supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 654 [refusing to
resolve “fact-specific questions” raised about matter of public importance].)
B. Baseline Term
      Appellant next argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
declining to reduce his baseline term.
      Section 875, subdivision (e)(1) requires the juvenile court to hold a
progress review hearing every six months at which the court will evaluate a
juvenile ward’s progress on the rehabilitation plan and determine 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.” (Id., subd. (e)(1)(A).) At the
conclusion of the review hearing, the court must decide whether the ward will
remain in custody for the remainder of the baseline or term or whether the
baseline term will be modified downward by a reduction of time not to exceed
six months for each review hearing. (Ibid.)
      Appellant emphasizes his good behavior during his commitment to the
secure pathway at BYA and notes his counsel argued to the juvenile court at
both review hearings that if he had been committed to DJJ, he would have
been entitled to time credits based on good behavior. Counsel further
emphasizes the “critical importance of ‘positive reinforcement for youth,’ a
contention that science has long recognized.” Noting the juvenile court “was
not obligated to reduce the baseline for a full six months,” appellant argues

                                         10
that “[e]ven a reduction by a few days could have reinforced [his] positive
behaviors and fostered his rehabilitation.” Appellant asserts the juvenile
court abused its discretion by denying his motion without any analysis and
failed to give meaningful consideration to his request.
      Appellant has not shown the trial court failed to give his request
meaningful consideration or abused its discretion in declining to reduce the
baseline term. At both the April and October 2022 review hearings, the
juvenile court reviewed reports of appellant’s progress and heard argument
from counsel, and at the October hearing, it heard extensive testimony from
the supervisor of BYA and admitted multiple exhibits offered by appellant
regarding his progress toward rehabilitation.
      At the April 2022 review hearing, the juvenile court found that
although appellant was making progress on his rehabilitation plan, he had
only been in the program for a few months and still had several other classes
to complete. At the October 2022 hearing, the juvenile court stated it
credited Horace’s testimony and had reviewed the exhibits submitted. The
court recognized that appellant made “substantial progress” in his
rehabilitation, but also found “he has significant additional portions of his
rehabilitation plan that still would be helpful to his rehabilitation process,”
including remaining programming and interactive journaling. The court
further expressed concern that based on recent incidents, appellant continued
to demonstrate he was “deeply committed to the gang lifestyle,” and observed
that appellant had not fully internalized the course lessons and changed his
behavior.4

      4 The court articulated these concerns in the context of appellant’s

motion to be placed in a less restrictive facility, but indicated on the record
that it was denying his motion to reduce his baseline term “for the reasons

                                       11
      These concerns are supported by a summary in the probation report
reflecting that between June and August 2022, appellant obtained four
separate incident reports for gang-related involvement. The probation report
notes that although he had been admonished, he continued to engage in
gang-related behavior. It observes appellant is “deeply entrenched in gang
activity, and it is affecting his progress to make better choices,” and that
while he has “perfected ‘programming,’ . . . he has not understood the serious
ramifications” of his gang-related behavior.
      Contrary to appellant’s argument that the court gave his request no
serious consideration, the court fulfilled its obligation to evaluate appellant’s
progress in relation to his rehabilitation plan after considering arguments of
counsel, recommendations of the probation department, and other evidence in
the record. Our review reveals no abuse of discretion.
C. Programming Necessary to Rehabilitation
      Appellant also argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to
order the probation department to provide programming deemed necessary to
his rehabilitation. He contends that through no fault of his own, his
programming had “essentially stalled since July of 2022” and he asked the
court to order that programming be made available prior to the next six-
month review hearing.
      We disagree that appellant has demonstrated an abuse of discretion on
this record. Appellant bases his argument on an exchange between the court
and counsel near the end of the October 2022 hearing. Appellant’s counsel
stated that appellant had not had programming since July, and that the less

[the court had] stated” in relation to appellant’s other motion. Appellant’s
contention that the trial court failed to analyze his claim or give it serious
consideration is thus contradicted by the record of the proceedings.

                                       12
restrictive housing unit in which he was supposed to reside was not yet open,
then asked the court, “[H]ow shall I address that if there’s no programming
that he’s receiving?” The court responded: “I think you address it with
Probation. I’ll ask that programming be provided. [¶] And if you think there’s
a legal basis for seeking a motion, you can do so. [¶] Beyond that, I don’t
know of any statutory mechanism for enforcing the programming
requirement.” Appellant’s counsel then asked if the court would be open to
ordering that appellant be given interactive journaling books and scheduling
a further hearing with respect to programming in 45 days in case counsel had
any concerns. The court responded, “I’m not going to be ordering Probation
on what specific actions to take. I’m not setting another interim review. [¶]
I’ve addressed the issues that are on calendar for today, so I need to set a
date, and we’re done for now, and you take the actions you deem
appropriate.”
      The record reflects the juvenile court responded appropriately to
counsel’s request. The court directed appellant’s counsel to first address the
matter with the probation department, who presumably could work with
BYA to ensure that necessary programming was provided. The court also
told counsel that the court would ask probation to provide programming. The
court then encouraged counsel to bring a motion if counsel continued to have
concerns or had a specific legal basis for the request.
      Appellant contends the trial court’s refusal to order “additional
programming, including formal, evidence-based gang-intervention treatment,
was based on the mistaken belief that it had no authority to do so.”
Appellant does not point us, however, to a request for “evidence-based gang-
intervention treatment.” Rather, appellant’s counsel asked what counsel
should do and asked that appellant be given access to interactive journals.

                                       13
The record reflects the juvenile court appropriately encouraged appellant’s
counsel to address the programming issues first with probation and offered
counsel the opportunity to raise the issue again by way of a formal motion.5
There was no abuse of discretion.
                             III. DISPOSITION
      The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.

      5 As the Attorney General points out, evidence in the record shows that

certain classes were unavailable due to short-term logistical issues related to
a programming pause during a COVID-19 outbreak, and because of the
necessity of providing refresher courses to trainers who would be conducting
the classes. Appellant continued to attend counseling and school during the
gap in other programming.

                                      14
                        MARGULIES, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUMES, P. J.

BANKE, J.

A165275, A166525
In re R.A.

                   15