Opinion
A148593
04-24-2017
In re VINCENT R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VINCENT R., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. 38234-J)
Vincent R. (the minor) admitted sexual battery by restraint (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a)) and the juvenile court placed him on deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 790). The court later terminated DEJ (§ 793), declared wardship (§ 602), and placed the minor on probation with various conditions.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The minor appeals. His appointed counsel asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We have reviewed the record and we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2014, the 15-year-old minor went to the victim's apartment "after she told him numerous times not to come over . . . took the victim's shirt and bra off, held her on the bed, and masturbated. He pressured her for sexual intercourse . . . [and] rubbed his penis on the victim's breasts." The victim was 20-years-old but had "intellectual deficits" and "cerebral palsy and functioned around a twelve to fourteen year old range."
In April 2015, the People filed a section 602 petition; the operative amended petition alleged the minor committed sexual battery by restraint (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a)). In June 2015, the minor admitted the allegation, and the court placed him on DEJ (§ 790) with various conditions, including that he complete a "counseling program with a licensed therapist with sex offense specific expertise[.]"
In April 2016, the prosecution filed a noncompliance petition (§ 793) stating the minor "was court ordered to attend and successfully complete an approved counseling program with a licensed therapist with sex offense specific expertise" and that the minor's therapist opined "the minor is not amenable to outpatient treatment." The prosecution requested the court enter judgment and remand the minor to juvenile hall pending disposition. In a supplemental report, the probation department noted the minor had created a second Facebook account in "violation of [a] court order" and that messages on that account indicated the minor had "been . . . using drugs and alcohol, and possibly selling drugs." A court-appointed psychologist recommended placing the minor in a residential treatment program.
The court remanded the minor pending a hearing on his "continued suitability regarding deferred entry of judgment." The court determined detention was "necessary . . . because of supervision issues, behavioral issues, mental health issues, and . . . because of his direct violation of the Court order that he not be on Facebook." --------
The minor opposed the request for entry of judgment. At a May 2016 hearing, the probation department and the prosecutor urged the court to terminate DEJ. As the prosecutor explained, the "minor was given an opportunity. He's violated the terms and conditions . . . of the deferred entry of judgment. It's really in the best interests of the minor and the community . . . that the minor be put in a more restrictive setting such as placement. So we would ask the Court to find the minor a ward [of the court] and to put him in appropriate placement." Defense counsel urged the court to continue DEJ, noting the minor was pressured to commit the underlying offense.
The court terminated DEJ. It explained: "In regards to his suitability to continue on [ ] deferred entry of judgment, you're offering to the Court that he may have been manipulated or influenced to commit this offense. But I think what can't be lost is the fact that the victim was a 20-year-old female who was reported to have intellectual deficits, cerebral palsy, and functioned at a range of 12 to 14. So it may be somebody influenced him to go ahead and commit this particular sexual offense, but he also took advantage of a victim that, in the Court's mind, was vulnerable.
"Aside from the facts of the case, the Court has some concerns about him continuing on in deferred entry of judgment. The Court reviewed [the psychologist's] report and the Court feels that [the psychologist] was right on in the sense that . . . the minor, needs to be in a residential program where he will receive therapy that would assist him in going forward while on probation. [The psychologist] noted that [the minor] himself reported that he was a manipulator and a liar and that he did lie to probation about violations that occurred while on probation, and that was in order to manipulate the perceptions of himself.
"He has been involved in violations of probation since being on deferred entry of judgment and, in fact, set up a second Facebook account in which he was accessing the Internet in violation of his probation and then didn't accurately report that to probation and even gave them the password to his prior account but tried to hide his subsequent account, which he continued to access Facebook even after he was in court . . . ."
"So the Court feels that [the minor] did have opportunities to prove himself on deferred entry of judgment. The therapist that was working with him for sex offense therapy raised concerns about how he was responding to treatment. So the Court feels that he is no longer suitable for participation on deferred entry of judgment and therefore I will remove him permanently from deferred entry of judgment." The court adjudged the minor a ward of the court (§ 602) and determined he was "no longer suitable for deferred entry of judgment" (§ 793). In addition, the court removed the minor from parental custody, ordered him "detained in juvenile hall pending placement by probation[,]" imposed probation conditions, and ordered the minor to pay a restitution fine.
DISCUSSION
The minor's appointed counsel filed a Wende brief and informed the minor he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. The minor declined to do so. We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende and find no arguable issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.) The court did not err by terminating DEJ. (See In re J.G. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 955, 961; People v. Orozco (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 726, 729.) The court did not abuse its discretion in placing the minor at juvenile hall. (See In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396.) The restitution fine was proper. (In re J.G., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 961.) The probation conditions are not constitutionally defective. (People v. Garcia (2017) 2 Cal.5th 792, 798; People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 497.) The minor was ably represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Jones, P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Simons, J. /s/_________
Bruiniers, J.