Filed 10/20/26 In re H.P. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re H.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, F090795
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 25JWP00042)
v.
OPINION
H.P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Christie
Canales Norris, Judge.
Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and Harrell, J.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, David A. Lowe and
Cameron M. Goodman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Minor H.P. (minor) contends on appeal that the juvenile court’s disposition order
must be reversed and the matter remanded because the court abused its discretion when it
committed minor to Camp Erwin Owen. The People disagree. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 13, 2025, a juvenile wardship petition was filed in Kern County
Superior Court, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602, alleging minor
committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664/212.5, subd. (c); count 1);
possession of metal knuckles (Pen. Code, § 21810; count 2); and misdemeanor elder
abuse (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1); count 3).
On October 14, 2025, minor denied the allegations.
On October 29, 2025, minor admitted count 2 pursuant to a negotiated plea
agreement. On the prosecution’s motion, the juvenile court dismissed counts 1 and 3.
On November 12, 2025, the juvenile court held a disposition hearing. It declared
minor a ward of the court, imposed terms and conditions of probation, and committed
minor to Camp Erwin Owen for a maximum confinement term of two years. The court
granted minor 35 days of credit for time served.
On November 20, 2025, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
FACTUAL SUMMARY2
On October 9, 2025, at approximately 5:30 p.m., 68-year-old Luis G. was at a fast
food restaurant ordering a meal when minor and another juvenile, M.W., approached him
and demanded money. M.W. was brandishing a knife. When Luis refused to give them
his money, M.W. threatened to beat Luis up. Minor then repeated the threat to Luis.
Luis fled, fearing for his life.
1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise
noted.
2 The facts of the underlying offense are taken from the probation report.
Kern County sheriff’s deputies responded to the incident and found six juveniles,
including minor and M.W., walking away from the restaurant. The deputies detained and
searched minor and M.W. They found minor had brass knuckles and marijuana on his
person and arrested him.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed minor
to Camp Erwin Owen. The People disagree. We agree with the People.
A. Background
November 5, 2025 Probation Report
The November 5, 2025 probation report outlined issues with minor’s behavior. It
stated that minor reported his overall behavior was good in his mother’s home, but that
prior to the incident, his grades in high school were poor because of his poor class
attendance. Minor also reported that he had no suspensions or referrals at his high
school. Minor said that he did not know what the conversation was between his friend
and the victim during the incident, but that he heard the victim threaten to stab his friend.
He stated that he was in possession of brass knuckles for self-protection. He stated that
he believed community service hours or additional hours at the Youth Detention Center
(YDC) were an appropriate consequence for the incident. Minor reported that his
behavior at YDC was good and that he had no behavioral incidents while in custody
there.
The report also stated minor’s mother believed minor had difficulty behaving
outside the home when unsupervised, that she was concerned with his recent behavior at
school, including disruptive behavior and possession of marijuana, and that she believed
the appropriate disposition for minor was camp commitment, rather than probation in her
care at home.
The report noted that despite minor reporting he had no suspensions at school,
minor’s high school records showed that from August 14, 2025, through October 9, 2025,
he accumulated one day of suspension and 11 disciplinary incidents, including referrals
for engaging in intimidation against school staff, classroom disruption, possession of a
controlled substance, and electronics violations, for which he received out of school
suspension, parent contact, lunch detention, student conference and a warning, in addition
to 40 period cuts, six excused absences, and 24 period tardies. The report stated that all
his grades were F’s except for one D in Physical Education. The report stated that prior
to attending the high school, minor was enrolled in Community Learning Center for
eighth grade, but that the registrar reported minor was “nonexistent” because he failed to
attend school and was dropped and reenrolled several times due to his lack of attendance.
The report stated that minor’s risk level of reoffending was “moderate.” It stated
that minor reported smoking marijuana daily and was found to be in possession of a
controlled substance at high school on September 29, 2025, and had consumed alcohol in
the past. It recommended camp commitment as the appropriate disposition, stating it
would give minor “the opportunity to participate in individual and group counseling,
maintain sobriety from drugs, attend school daily, and learn the skills necessary to refrain
from criminal activity.”
The report stated that when determining that camp commitment was the
appropriate disposition for minor, the probation officer took into account minor’s
criminogenic needs, risk of reoffending, the nature of the offense, behavior and
attendance in school, admitted substance abuse, lack of remorse for the victim, lack of
motivation to redirect his behaviors, escalating behaviors and the safety of minor and the
community. It stated the details of the offense were concerning, as minor played an
active role in the incident in which M.W. brandished a knife and minor demanded money
from the victim, an elderly man, causing the victim to fear for his life, and that once
minor was located and detained, he was found to be in possession of brass knuckles and
marijuana, exhibiting a willingness to escalate violence and intimidation and presenting a
danger to the safety of the public. It also noted minor minimized his involvement in the
incident and showed no remorse for the victim.
The probation report stated that minor had no prior criminal history, but that
intervention was necessary to address minor’s needs and hold him accountable for his
involvement in the incident, because of his minimization of his behaviors and his
escalating criminality displayed during the offense and in the community. It stated
commitment to YDC was not considered due to the nature of the offense, and because
YDC was only able to provide limited resources during a short period of time.
Accordingly, the probation report recommended minor be committed to Camp Erwin
Owen, because there, he would have the opportunity to participate in individual and
group counseling, maintain sobriety from controlled substances, attend school daily, and
learn skills necessary to refrain from criminal activity.
November 7, 2025 Youth Detention Center Report
The November 7, 2025 YDC report stated minor had no behavior issues in school
while in custody at YDC, but had several other behavioral issues while in custody there,
including a total point loss on October 15, 2025, and October 21, 2025, and that he was
disciplined for having a rag in the shower on October 26, 2025, and for unauthorized
communication on November 4, 2025.
November 12, 2025 Disposition Hearing
At the November 12, 2025 disposition hearing, the juvenile court stated it read and
considered the November 5, 2025 probation report and the November 7, 2025 YDC
report.
Defense counsel requested the juvenile court stay commitment to camp and place
minor on probation in the care of his mother instead. He stated it was minor’s first
incident involving the juvenile justice system, that he had no behavioral issues while in
custody in the YDC, and “plans to stay out of trouble” and not carry weapons in the
future. He argued that minor possessed the brass knuckles “not for the purposes of going
out and committing crimes,” but for self-defense because “he had been jumped in the
past,” but stated he was not asking the court to excuse minor’s behavior. He stated minor
demonstrated insight and some accountability for the incident. Defense counsel also
stated that minor’s mother said he was “well behaved … at home” and that the incident
was “not … common for his behavior.” He stated minor’s sister told him that minor had
great support at home and that she took him to and from school. Defense counsel
requested the court consider an alternative disposition that did not include commitment to
camp, or in the alternative, to stay the commitment to camp and give minor a chance to
try to benefit from an out of custody program or demonstrate to the court that he had
made a change. He argued that “just based on having metal knuckles,” camp
commitment was “a little too much at this point,” as minor had not yet had an opportunity
to do any rehabilitation, such as work programs and engaging in counseling with his
mother or a family counselor.
Minor’s sister addressed the juvenile court, acknowledging that what minor did
was wrong and that he knew it was wrong, but that he wanted to better himself, stating,
“He is trying … [he] is going to try to go to school every day [and] get[ting] his grades
up.” She stated that she would help him by continuing to take him to school and that,
although she had four children of her own, she would try to be there for minor as much as
she could.
The prosecution submitted to the court as to the proper disposition for minor but
also recommended substance abuse counseling due to minor’s reported issues with
marijuana and recommended participation in the “Bridges” program to address his
academic issues.
The juvenile court stated it believed camp commitment, as recommended by the
probation report, was the appropriate disposition for minor based on the reasons stated in
the report. It stated that although it was minor’s first petition and minor acknowledged he
had poor academic performance, minor failed to acknowledge that he had any
disciplinary issues at school, including the one-day suspension or 11 referrals for
disciplinary incidents involving intimidation against school staff, electronic violations,
classroom disruption, and possession of a controlled substance, as well as 24 period
tardies and 40 period cuts between August 14, 2025, and October 9, 2025. The court also
noted that defense counsel’s contention that minor had not had any disciplinary issues
during his time in custody at the YDC was inaccurate, as the YDC report stated minor
received alternative programming point losses on October 15, 2025, and October 25,
2025, and was disciplined for having a rag in the shower on October 26, 2025, and for
engaging in unauthorized communications on November 4, 2025.
The juvenile court also discussed minor’s poor attendance and performance at
school, stating,
“While I understand that this is [minor’s] [first] petition, with the
amount of school that he’s missed, and even when looking at his time when
he was in 8th grade, when he was at [Community Learning Center], the
registrar said he was nonexistent. He was nonexistent there because he
failed to attend school.”
It further stated that, while it appreciated minor’s sister’s willingness to help, it
was minor’s responsibility to “get the tools to take accountability, to show the remorse,
and to be forthcoming about his involvement, and also to take advantage of the
educational opportunities” at the camp, with “evidence based programming” aimed at
bringing “down his recidivism rate.”
The juvenile court stated that it understood minor entered a plea agreement to
admit count 2 and that the remaining counts would be dismissed. However, the court
stated that minor had a history of minimizing his behavior, including his involvement in
the underlying incident and that commitment to camp was appropriate for the reasons
stated in the probation report, noting that minor’s mother also agreed with that
disposition. It stated that because of these reasons, along with minor’s moderate risk
level to reoffend, commitment to camp was appropriate.
B. Law
Section 202 provides:
“Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court … as a
consequence of delinquent conduct shall, in conformity with the interests of
public safety and protection, receive care, treatment, and guidance that is
consistent with their best interest, that holds them accountable for their
behavior, and that is appropriate for their circumstances. This guidance
may include punishment that is consistent with the rehabilitative objectives
of this chapter.” (§ 202, subd. (b).)
In deciding a minor’s placement, “ ‘the juvenile court [has] maximum flexibility
to craft suitable orders aimed at rehabilitating the particular ward before it.’ ” (In re
James R. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 413, 432; In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 7.)
Dispositional orders must conform with the purposes of juvenile delinquency laws, which
are “twofold: (1) to serve the ‘best interests’ of the delinquent ward by providing care,
treatment, and guidance to rehabilitate the ward and ‘enable him or her to be a law-
abiding and productive member of his or her family and the community,’ and (2) to
‘provide for the protection and safety of the public.’ ” (In re Charles G. (2004) 115
Cal.App.4th 608, 614.) “To accomplish these purposes, the juvenile court has statutory
authority to order delinquent wards to receive ‘care, treatment, and guidance that is
consistent with their best interest, that holds them accountable for their behavior, and that
is appropriate for their circumstances.’ ” (Id. at p. 615; see § 202, subds. (a), (b), & (d).)
When determining the appropriate disposition in a delinquency proceeding, the juvenile
courts are required to consider “(1) the age of the minor, (2) the circumstances and
gravity of the offense committed by the minor, and (3) the minor’s previous delinquent
history.” (§ 725.5.) It must “consider ‘the broadest range of information’ in determining
how best to rehabilitate a minor and afford him adequate care.” (In re Robert H. (2002)
96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329.)
A disposition hearing record should reflect evidence that the proposed means of
rehabilitation will result in probable benefit to the minor, and that the goals of the
juvenile law could not have been met by a less restrictive placement. (In re Michael D.
(1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1396; In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 906.)
“After finding that a minor is a [ward of the court], the court shall hear evidence on the
question of the proper disposition to be made of the minor. The court shall receive in
evidence the social study of the minor made by the probation officer and any other
relevant and material evidence that may be offered, including any written or oral
statement offered by the victim.… In any judgment and order of disposition, the court
shall state that the social study made by the probation officer has been read and that the
social study and any statement has been considered by the court.” (§ 706.) The juvenile
court may consider the conduct underlying dismissed allegations in determining the
appropriate placement for a ward. (In re Jimmy P. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1679, 1681
(Jimmy P.).) A Harvey waiver3 is not required for the juvenile court to consider
dismissed counts in a juvenile disposition. (Id. at pp. 1683–1685.)
The standard of review in juvenile commitment decisions is abuse of discretion.
(In re Joey G. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 343, 346.) A juvenile court abuses its discretion
when it acts “ ‘in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a
manifest miscarriage of justice.’ ” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124–
1125, abrogated on other grounds recognized in People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831,
848.) Reviewing courts “ ‘must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision
of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings when there is substantial evidence to
support them.’ ” (In re Lorenza M. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 49, 53.) Unless the record is
entirely devoid of evidence to support the court’s factual findings, the decision to commit
a minor should not be disturbed. (In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154.)
“ ‘Substantial evidence’ is evidence of ponderable legal significance, evidence that is
reasonable, credible and of solid value.” (Roddenberry v. Roddenberry (1996) 44
3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
Cal.App.4th 634, 651.) “ ‘ “In determining whether there was substantial evidence to
support the commitment, we must examine the record presented at the disposition hearing
in light of the purposes of the [j]uvenile [c]ourt [l]aw.” ’ ” (In re Oscar A. (2013) 217
Cal.App.4th 750, 756.) In reviewing a commitment determination, we remember that
“ ‘the primary goal behind maintaining separate courts and procedures for adults and
minors is to ensure that juvenile offenders who have not yet become hardened criminals
receive treatment and rehabilitation.’ ” (In re Carlos E. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1529,
1542.) That goal is reflected in the mandate that courts consider “the protection of the
public as well as the rehabilitation of the minor” in reaching a disposition. (Ibid.)
Accordingly, “when we assess the record in light of the purposes of the [j]uvenile [c]ourt
[l]aw [citation], we evaluate the exercise of discretion with punishment and public safety
and protection in mind.” (In re Lorenza M., supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at p. 58.)
C. Analysis
Here, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it committed minor to
Camp Erwin Owen. Substantial evidence supports the court’s reasonable inference that
camp commitment will result in probable benefit to the minor, and that the goals of
juvenile law could not have been met by a less restrictive placement. (See In re
Michael D., supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1397.)
Minor contends there was insufficient evidence presented at the disposition
hearing that camp commitment was warranted because the juvenile court failed to
consider any less restrictive alternatives. He argues the juvenile court did not consider
that juvenile hall commitment could provide the same services he would receive at camp
with respect to educational services and holding minor accountable, and that there is no
more probable benefit to minor being committed to camp than he would receive in a less
restrictive commitment.
However, substantial evidence, including minor’s poor performance in school
prior to the incident, shown by his chronic failure to attend class, his admitted daily
marijuana use, lack of remorse for his offense, and minimization of his role in the
incident, supports the juvenile court’s reasonable inference that camp commitment would
result in probable benefit to minor, and that the goals of the juvenile law of rehabilitation
of minor and protection of the public could not have been met by the less restrictive
alternatives of in-home probation or YDC commitment.
Here, the probation report, read and considered by the juvenile court,
recommended minor be committed to camp because it believed intervention was
necessary to address minor’s needs and hold him accountable for his involvement in the
incident, due to his minimization of his behaviors and his escalating criminality displayed
during the offense and in the community. The report noted minor’s age, and stated minor
did not express remorse for his conduct and minimized his involvement in the incident. It
stated that minor had not rehabilitated while in custody at YDC while awaiting
disposition, noting several behavioral incidents there, and listed numerous behavioral and
academic issues prior to the incident. The report also stated that camp commitment
would provide minor with the opportunity to participate in individual and group
counseling, maintain sobriety from controlled substances, attend school daily, and learn
skills necessary to refrain from criminal activity. It further stated commitment to YDC, a
less restrictive alternative, was not sufficient to meet minor’s needs because of the nature
of the offense, and because YDC would only be able to provide limited resources during
a short period of time.
The court, considering the circumstances and gravity of the offense, noted minor
was in possession of the brass knuckles during the incident, causing concern for public
safety. It also noted that it was minor’s first petition and that minor’s mother believed
camp commitment was the appropriate disposition for minor.
Accordingly, the record shows the juvenile court heard evidence on the question
of the proper disposition to be made of the minor and received in evidence the probation
report, which it read and considered as required by section 706, as well as other relevant
and material evidence. The record also shows that the court considered minor’s age,
previous delinquent history, and the circumstances and gravity of his offenses when it
committed him to camp, as required by section 725.5. The disposition hearing record
also reflects evidence that minor’s commitment to camp will result in probable benefit to
minor that could not be met by less restrictive alternatives. As the court noted, the goal
of rehabilitation of minor was not met when he was held in custody at YDC awaiting
disposition of the case, shown by several behavioral incidents. Further, as stated above,
the probation report also noted that the limited resources the YDC would be able to
provide during a short period of time would not be sufficient for what minor required for
rehabilitation, and further noted the need to protect the public because minor participated
in an incident in which he intimidated an elderly person while carrying brass knuckles,
and that his mother believed she could not control his behavior outside of the home.
Pursuant to sections 706 and 725.5, and in light of the dual purposes of juvenile
law to protect the public and rehabilitate minor, the court’s decision to commit minor to
Camp Erwin Owen is supported by sufficient evidence and was neither arbitrary nor
capricious. The record supports the court’s reasonable inference that commitment to the
camp would result in probable benefit to minor and that the purposes of juvenile law
could not be met by a less restrictive alternative. Accordingly, we conclude the court did
not abuse its discretion when it committed minor to the camp.
DISPOSITION
The disposition order is affirmed.