In re J.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.S., Defendant and Appellant.
2d Juv. No. B336233 (Super. Ct. No. 2019028014)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 9/18/24
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION. (Ventura County)
Factual Predicate
In 2018 and 2019, appellant engaged in a series of crimes. He was 16 years old when some of the offenses occurred and 17 when others occurred. Appellant committed seven “street robberies” in which he and his cohorts aрproached random individuals and demanded their cell phones, jewelry, and cash. In April and June 2019, he committed a burglary at an apartment leasing office and a house. In June 2019, he attempted to rob Charles Barber. When Barber resisted, appellant struck him several times and stabbed him in the head with a knife, killing him. Two days after the murder, appellant drugged a 14-year-old girl in a motel, sexually assaulted her with another male, and filmed himself having sex with the girl while she was unconscious.
Section 602 Petition
In a fourth amended petition, the People charged appellant with violations of the
The People filed a motion to transfer appellant to adult criminal court. The probation department filed a report in support of transfer. After extensive briefing, the juvenile court conducted the transfer hearing.
Appellant‘s Family and Social History
Appellant‘s mother was the victim of prolonged domestic abuse by appellant‘s father, including while she was pregnant with appellant. When appellant was five years old, his mother left his father. When appellant was 13 years old, his mother became pregnant by another man, who moved into the family home. Over the next several years, Child Protective Services investigated reports of physical abuse and neglect. The family experienced food insecurity and homelessness at one point.
When appellant was 15 years old, he began visiting his paternal family. His mother noticed he was more distant after the visits. Around the same time, appellant began experimenting with Xanax, alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine and developed an addiction to Xanax.
Appellant‘s Conduct in Custody
Appellant has been detained at the juvenile detention center since August 2019. Since that time, he has received two major incident reports for fighting and possession of contraband. He has also received 69 minor incident reports as of April 2021.
In September 2023, appellant was involved in a physical fight in the juvenile detention center. Probation Officer Clemente
Appellant participated in social and rehabilitation programming and graduated from high school with his diploma. He also participated in the Providence Scholars рrogram, which allowed him to enroll in college courses. Additionally, appellant received mental health treatment and therapy.
Expert Testimony
Dr. Blake Carmichael, a clinical psychologist retained by the People, opined that it would be “very difficult” for appellant to be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court‘s jurisdiction. He identified several “risk factors” to appellant‘s rehabilitation. These included appellant‘s drug use while in custody, likely risk for violent recidivism, gang involvement, and his consistent pattern of rule violations during his detention. Dr. Carmichael also testified that he did not see any evidence that appellant‘s crimes were triggered by prior trauma. He opined it was “possible” but not “probable” that appellant could be rehabilitated prior to age 25.
Probation Officer Vredenburgh, testified about the rehabilitative programming available to juveniles through the SYTF, including: Moral Reconation Therapy, Dialectic Behavioral Therapy, Youth Mentor Counseling, Interactive Journaling Workbooks, Healthy Lifestyles, Word on the Street, Poetry, Tablet programs on Master Plan Work and Money Essentials, Visual Arts and Mural, Music in Society, Substance Treatment Services, Youth Sex Offender Treatment, Anger Management, Passport tо Manhood, Money Matters, Alpha Leadership, and Behavioral Health.
Doug Ugarkovich, a juvenile justice consultant, testified on behalf of appellant. He opined that appellant was amenable to rehabilitation in the 47 months remaining until the expiration of the juvеnile court‘s jurisdiction.
Dr. Stephanie Marcy, a clinical psychologist, interviewed appellant and reviewed reports. She also examined appellant using the Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory and Adverse Childhood Experience checklist. Dr. Marcy testified the test results showed appellant was responding positively to the therapeutic interventions he had received while in programming. Dr. Marcy opined there was a “very strong potential” for appellant to continue to rehabilitate over the next four years. On cross-examination, Dr. Marcy acknowledged that planning ahead to commit a crime would be a sign of criminal sophistication.
The Juvenile Court‘s Order
In March 2024, the juvenile court issued its ruling, finding that the People had met their burden on four of the five transfer criteria. In its ruling, the juvenile court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellant was not amenable to
Discussion
We review the juvenile court‘s determination to transfer a minor to criminal court for abuse of discretion. (J.N. v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 706, 714 (J.N.); In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165 (Miguel R.).) “The court‘s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. [Citation.] A decision based on insufficient еvidence or the court‘s ‘erroneous understanding of applicable law’ is subject to reversal. [Citation.]” (Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187.) But, as indicated, we do not reweigh the evidence and we do not substitute our discretion for the discretion exercised by the trial court. The rules attendant to these standards were explained in detail by this cоurt in Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1448-1449, citing inter alia Brown v. Newby (1940) 39 Cal.App.2d 615, 618.
Our opinion “. . . is not a controversial tract, much less a brief in reply to the counsel against whose views we decide.” (Holmes v. Rogers (1859) 13 Cal. 191, 202.) Thus, we do not view the trial court‘s contemporaneous remarks, which appellant seizes upon, as impeaching its ruling. (E.g., People v. Gibson (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 841, 853.) It is not determinative that the trial court mistakenly said that the case originаted in the criminal court. (See also Davey v. Southern Pacific Co. (1897) 116 Cal. 325, 329.)
In making that determination, the juvenile court must consider five specific factors: (1) “[t]he degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor” (
The statute also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of relevant factors for the juvenile court to consider with respect to each of the five criteria. (
Sufficiency of the Evidence/Abuse of Discretion
Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering him transferred to the superior court because the
A juvenile court can retain jurisdiction over a minor as described in section 602 for the offense of murder until he or she attains 25 years of age, or upon the expiration of a two-year period of control, whichever occurs later. (
Here, the juvenile court concluded “there is not enough time for the Minor to rehabilitate.” In so concluding, the juvenile court considered all of the evidence presented, including expert
This is consistent with Dr. Carmichael‘s conclusion that it would be “very diffiсult” and “unlikely” that appellant could achieve rehabilitation prior to age 25. Indeed, Dr. Carmichael explained he would have anticipated seeing “a greater trajectory towards progress.”
Application of Section 707 Transfer Criteria
Appellant next contends the juvenile court did not properly apply the section 707 transfer criteria. As we have indicated, we need not reply to these “sub-arguments.” (See ante, p. 7.) But, we elect to treat with two of them, sophistication and previous history. Appellant contends the factors the juvenile court considered as to criminal sophistication and previous delinquent history were insufficient to justify transfеr under the heightened clear and convincing evidence standard.
When evaluating the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor, section 707 requires the juvenile court to “give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the minor‘s age, maturity, intellectual capacity, and physical, mental, and emotional health at the time of the alleged offense; the minor‘s impetuosity or failure to appreciate risks and consequences of criminal behavior; the effect of familial, adult, or peer pressure on the minor‘s actions; the effect of the minor‘s family and community environment; the existencе of childhood trauma; the minor‘s involvement in the child welfare or foster
Appellant contends he presented “significant evidence” of these factors, including evidence of childhood trauma and favorable evidence of his therapeutic growth while in custody. According to appellant, the juvenile court did not acknowledge this evidence.
But the juvenile court expressly stated in its written ruling that it had considered “the arguments of counsel, the reports and exhibits admitted into evidence, and the testimony of all witnesses,” which necessarily included evidence of appellant‘s social, emotional, and intellectual history.
After considering all of the evidence, the juvenile court opined that appellant‘s charged conduct involved violence and had progressed from robbery to robbery with a knife to murder with a knife. The crimes were not spontaneous or impulsive but were indicative of deliberation. The victims were vulnerable, elderly, or minor victims. There was little to no indication appellant suffered from any intellectual deficits. While in custody, he was able to finish high school and had taken college level courses. During an interview with law enforcement, appellant was “evasive,” and denied any involvement in the murder but later discussed attempts to conceal evidence.
Indeed, even appellant‘s expert witness, Dr. Marcy, acknowledged that planning ahead to commit a crime would be indicative of criminal sophistication.
When evaluating the minor‘s previous delinquent history, section 707 requires the juvenile court to “give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the seriousness of
As to this criterion, the juvenile court recounted appellant‘s previous contact with law enforcement, including bringing a knife to school, trespassing, robbery, theft, and failing to fulfill the terms of his probation. The juvenile court also noted appellant‘s “significant school delinquency” histоry starting in the seventh grade, including poor behavior, suspensions, and multiple attempts by school officials to rehabilitate appellant. This previous delinquent history supported transfer to adult court. (Miguel R., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 165.)
Disposition
The juvenile court‘s order transferring this matter to the superior court is affirmed.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.
YEGAN, Acting P. J.
We concur:
BALTODANO, J.
CODY, J.
Gilbert A. Romero, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
Claudia Y. Bautista, Public Defender, Thomas Hаrtnett, Snr. Deputy Public Defender, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chung L. Mar, David E. Madeo, and David Glassman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.