Filed 6/23/26 In re A.C. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
In re A.C., a Person Coming 2d Crim. No. B345856
Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Cons. w/ B345858)
(Super. Ct. No. 24JV-00152A
and 24JV-00152B)
THE PEOPLE, (San Luis Obispo County)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A.C., a minor, was found to have committed assault with
force likely to produce great bodily injury, carrying a concealed,
loaded firearm, evading an officer, and resisting an officer. The
juvenile court committed appellant to a Secure Youth Treatment
Facility. Appellant asserts the juvenile court lacked authority to
do so. The Attorney General agrees. We do as well and will
remand for a new disposition hearing.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2024, the Santa Barbara County District
Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code
section 6021 alleging that on October 21, 2023, appellant, a
minor, committed an unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code,
§ 10851, subd. (a)), evading an officer (id., § 2800.2, subd. (a)),
resisting police (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), and driving
without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)).
On March 21, 2024, the Santa Barbara County District
Attorney filed a petition under section 602 alleging appellant
committed eight counts of criminal conduct on March 13, a ninth
count occurring on February 19, and a tenth count on January 1.
On July 30, 2024, the Santa Barbara County District
Attorney filed a petition under section 602 alleging that on July
26, appellant violated the Penal Code by carrying a concealed,
loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)(2)), large capacity
magazine activity (id., § 32310, subd. (a)), misdemeanor
possession of live ammunition by a minor (id., § 29650), and
misdemeanor resisting an officer (id., § 148, subd. (a)(1)).
On August 26, 2024, appellant admitted to carrying a
concealed, loaded firearm and misdemeanor resisting an officer
on July 26, and his case was transferred to San Luis Obispo
County. Appellant was declared a ward of the court on terms and
conditions of probation, with the maximum custody time of two
years and four months.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2
On December 31, 2024, the San Luis Obispo County
District Attorney filed a petition under section 602 (DV Petition)
alleging that on December 23, appellant committed a
misdemeanor violation of corporal injury upon a spouse or
cohabitant. (Pen. Code, § 273.5.) The DV petition further alleged
that on December 29, appellant committed a second misdemeanor
violation of corporal injury upon a spouse or cohabitant. (Id.,
§ 273.5.)
On January 13, 2025, the Santa Barbara County District
Attorney amended the March 21, 2024 petition to add an
eleventh count alleging that on March 13, appellant committed
an assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen.
Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).)
On January 14, 2025, appellant admitted to evading an
officer in October 2023, and to an assault with force likely to
produce great bodily injury in March 2024. The juvenile court
dismissed the remaining counts in each petition, excluding the
DV petition, and ordered a Secure Youth Treatment Facility
(SYTF) assessment.
On April 29, 2025, following a hearing, the juvenile court
dismissed the DV Petition. The court again declared appellant a
ward of the court, then ordered him committed to a SYTF for a
term of two years and six months “based on the most recent
offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code 707(b),” of assault
with force likely to produce great bodily injury occurring in
March 2024.
Appellant filed two notices of appeal and we granted his
motion to consolidate the appeals for purposes of briefing, oral
argument, and disposition.
3
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the juvenile court lacked authority to
commit him to a SYTF because the most recent offense for which
he was adjudicated was not a qualifying offense under section
707, subdivision (b). Respondent agrees, as do we.
Section 875 authorizes a juvenile court to commit a ward 14
years of age and older to a SYTF if the ward meets certain
criteria, two of which are relevant here: “(1) The juvenile is
adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on an
offense listed in” section 707, subdivision (b) and “(2) The
adjudication described in paragraph (1) is the most recent offense
for which the juvenile has been adjudicated.” (§ 875, subd. (a)(1)
& (2).)
Before the enactment of section 875, our Supreme Court
interpreted similar language in section 733, subdivision (c).
Section 733, subdivision (c) prohibits a ward’s commitment to the
DJJ2 if the ward’s “most recent offense alleged in any petition
and admitted or found to be true by the court is not described in”
section 707, subdivision (b) or Penal Code, section 290.008,
subdivision (c).3 The court held this language “is clear and lends
2 “The DJJ is also known as the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF).
[Citation] DJJ and DJF are used interchangeably in case law.”
(In re J.B. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 410, 413, fn. 1.)
3 Section 875 was enacted as part of the Legislature’s
implementation of “juvenile justice realignment” which closed
DJJ and transferred DJJ’s responsibilities to counties. Wards
who would have been committed to DJJ prior to realignment are
now committed to county-based SYTFs “[t]o ensure that justice-
involved youth are closer to their families and communities and
4
itself to only one reasonable interpretation.” (In re D.B. (2014) 58
Cal.4th 941, 947.) The phrase “‘most recent’” describes when the
minor committed the offense, not when the petition is
adjudicated. (Ibid; In re B.J. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 646, 648.)
The Legislature used language in section 875 substantially
similar to language the Supreme Court had already interpreted
in section 733, subdivision (c). We presume, therefore, that the
Legislature intended the same construction. (Moran v. Murtaugh
Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP (2007) 40 Cal.4th 780, 785.) Now,
instead of DJJ, eligible youth can be committed to a SYTF if their
most recent offense is described in section 707, subdivision (b).
Appellant admitted four offenses: (1) evading an officer on
October 23, 2023, assault with force likely to produce great bodily
injury on March 14, 2024, carrying a concealed, loaded firearm on
July 26, and misdemeanor resisting an officer on July 26. Of
those, only assault with force likely to produce great bodily harm
is described in section 707, subdivision (b). Thus, the court did
not have authority to impose a SYTF commitment because
appellant’s most recently committed offenses, carrying a
concealed, loaded firearm and misdemeanor resisting an officer,
both on July 26, 2024, occurred four months after the March 14
assault, and are not qualifying offenses. Remand is necessary to
allow the court to conduct a new disposition hearing.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order committing appellant to a secure
youth treatment facility is reversed and the matter is remanded
for a new disposition hearing.
receive age-appropriate treatment.” (Stats. 2020, ch. 337, § 1,
subd. (b).) Sections 875, 875.5, and 876 govern the commitment
of section 602 wards to SYTFs under the new dispositional model.
5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CODY, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P. J.
BALTODANO, J.
6
YEGAN, A.P.J., Concurring:
I concur under compulsion of California Supreme Court
authority. (See People v. N.S. (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 841 (conc.
opn. of Yegan, A.P.J.).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, Acting P. J.
Hon. Matthew G. Guerrero, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, and David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.