Filed 8/17/26 In re J.F. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 THREE
In re J.F., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.F., A173765
Defendant and Appellant.
(San Mateo County
Super. Ct. No. 24JW0025)
J.F. admitted allegations that he committed assault with a firearm and
personally used a firearm in the commission of a felony. The juvenile court
committed J.F. to a secure youth treatment facility (“SYTF” or “secure track”;
Welf. & Inst. Code, § 8751) for a maximum term of seven years, with a
baseline term of four years. On appeal, J.F. contends the court abused its
discretion in committing him to secure track because the court failed to
analyze any less restrictive alternative placements and explain why they
would be ineffective. J.F. further argues that the court failed to make specific
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
1
findings about how the programs in secure track would benefit him, and that
the record lacks substantial evidence of such probable benefits. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Underlying Offenses
1. May 2023
On May 12, 2023, J.F. (then age 15) took his stepfather’s vehicle
without permission, and the vehicle was used in a homicide in San Francisco
at around 4:00 p.m.
That evening, J.F. and his stepfather went to the Pacifica Police
Department and falsely reported the vehicle was stolen.2 J.F. told law
enforcement he had left school early that day around 12:00 p.m. and drove to
Pacifica. When he stopped to check the tires, a man in black clothes and a
black ski mask allegedly approached, demanded the keys, and drove away in
the stepfather’s vehicle. J.F. acknowledged he did not ask anyone for help or
attempt to call the police, and he claimed he walked home to Daly City, a
distance of approximately 13 miles. The police report indicated J.F.’s
stepfather had raised concerns about his stepson and believed “somebody was
pressuring [J.F.] to do something via telephone.” The stepfather asked the
police to search J.F.’s cell phone.
The vehicle was eventually recovered in Oakland, and the San
Francisco Police Department later obtained a photograph of J.F. driving the
vehicle over the Bay Bridge after the time he said it had been stolen and
approximately one hour after the homicide.
2. December 2023
In December 2023, J.F. (then age 16) was riding as a passenger in a
white 2011 Infiniti driven by his friend, A.M. A.M.’s brother, A.P., was in the
2 It is unclear whether J.F.’s stepfather knew the report was false.
2
front seat, and J.F. sat in the rear of the vehicle. Shortly before 4:30 p.m.,
the Infiniti drove down a residential street in San Francisco. Daniel
Sahagun was in his front yard throwing a ball to his father’s dogs when the
Infiniti hit one of the dogs and did not stop. Sahagun and his cousin got into
a red SUV and began pursuing the Infiniti.
The chase ensued for several minutes over a distance of 1.5 miles,
during which the Infiniti drove at high speeds and on the wrong side of the
road. The Infiniti eventually collided with a bus and came to a stop at an
intersection in Daly City. Sahagun and his cousin exited the red SUV and
approached the Infiniti. A.P. partially emerged from the passenger side
window of the Infiniti and appeared “to confront the victims.” J.F. then
pointed a gun out of the rear driver’s side window and fired three shots at
Sahagun, hitting him twice in the chest and once in the thigh. The Infiniti
immediately drove away.
Later that evening, San Francisco police were dispatched to the home
of A.M.’s mother on a report of carjacking and kidnapping. A.M. told law
enforcement that he and J.F. were waiting in the Infiniti outside A.M.’s
mother’s home when an unknown Black male with a gun ordered A.M. out of
the vehicle and then drove away with J.F. still in the front seat. A.M. told
officers that while walking back to his father’s house, he threw away his cell
phone, but he could not explain why he did so. The following day, police
officers went to J.F.’s home. J.F. claimed he had been kidnapped in the
Infiniti and held at gunpoint before the suspect robbed him of his cell phone,
cash, and a bracelet, and dropped him off. J.F. claimed he then walked
approximately seven hours back to his home.
San Francisco Police Department officers reviewed surveillance footage
of the area where the alleged carjacking occurred and saw A.M., A.P., and
3
J.F. in the Infiniti driving away together about three minutes prior to
striking Sahagun’s dog. There was no evidence of a carjacking. The Daly
City Police Department obtained search warrants for the phones of J.F. and
A.M. and the homes of J.F., A.M., and A.P.
Data from the cell phones confirmed that J.F. and A.M. were near the
scene of the shooting at around the time it occurred, and that afterwards,
A.M. remained in contact with others using the phone he claimed to have
discarded. Meanwhile, J.F. abandoned the Infiniti in Menlo Park and
remained at a location in East Palo Alto for several hours before he returned
by vehicle, not on foot, to his residence in Daly City. Video footage of the
chase and shooting showed that neither the driver nor the passenger of the
red SUV had a gun or made any movements suggesting they were reaching
for a weapon. No firearm was recovered from the red SUV. A search of
A.M.’s residence revealed firearms similar to the type used in the shooting
(but not the actual gun used), black ski masks, spent 9mm casings, live
ammunition, and license plates belonging to the white Infiniti.
J.F. was arrested in January 2024. He was in possession of a rose gold
cell phone, which he denied owning. His mother later told law enforcement
that “when the initial kidnapping report was initiated, [J.F.] lied to the police
that his phone was stolen.” J.F. wanted his mother’s phone because it was
newer, so they switched phones. J.F. “wiped his original phone off so the
records and memory and everything that was in that phone was deleted.”
J.F. told his mother “he did not want his phone taken away by the police,”
like it had been the year before when he was a suspect in a homicide
4
investigation San Francisco. J.F. specifically instructed his mother to report
his old phone as stolen.3
B. Juvenile Court Proceedings
1. Wardship Petition and Plea
In January 2024, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed a
juvenile wardship petition alleging J.F.’s commission of the following
offenses: attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); count one);
assault with a firearm (id., § 245, subd. (a)(2); count two); carrying a
concealed loaded weapon (id., § 25400, subd. (c)(6); count three); carrying a
loaded firearm in public (id., § 25850, subd. (c)(6); count four); destruction of
evidence (id., § 135; count five); and filing a false police report (id., § 148.5,
subd. (a); count six). Enhancements for personal and intentional discharge of
a firearm causing great bodily injury (id., § 12022.53, subd. (d)) and personal
use of a firearm in the commission of a felony (id., § 12022.5, subd. (a)) were
alleged as to counts one and two, respectively.
In October 2024, J.F. admitted count two and the personal firearm
enhancement allegation and stipulated to a factual basis for the plea.
Although the remaining counts were dismissed, J.F. agreed the dismissed
counts could be considered by the juvenile court for disposition.
2. Probation Report
In November 2024, the Probation Department submitted the following
information in its report to the juvenile court. J.F. had no known sustained
prior offenses and was not on probation. His parents separated when he was
seven years old, and he considered his mother’s current partner to be his
stepfather. J.F. was raised in the Hunter’s Point area with his mother,
3 It is unclear whether J.F.’s mother reported the phone stolen as J.F.
had instructed.
5
stepfather, and younger brother. Although financial hardship required the
parents to work often, J.F. had a stable home, and he denied any domestic
abuse.4 His mother reported that J.F. behaved well at home, was a “ ‘very
good kid,’ ” and had no substance abuse issues. J.F.’s high school transcripts
reflected declining grades.
J.F.’s behavior in custody since his January 2024 arrest had
“fluctuated.” He was “generally well behaved and respectful towards
institutions [sic] staff members,” and his attendance and academic
performance were improving. However, J.F. received two incident reports.
In August 2024, he “attacked” another youth with “punches to the head” and
“did not abide by staff directives to disengage.” In October 2024, J.F. was
reported for “possession of gang-related content and drawings of firearms.”
The writings described a homicide and violence with a firearm that “glorified
the violence.” He was also in possession of sexually explicit notes from a
female detainee, which violated facility rules.
J.F. engaged in weekly therapeutic sessions, and his clinician described
him as “ ‘a kind, respectful, responsible, reflective youth who has matured
developmentally since arriving in the juvenile hall.’ ” J.F. had no formal
diagnoses related to mental health, but it was noted that he experienced
symptoms of anxiety and was on an antidepressant. He denied a diagnosis
for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but “explained that, at times, he
experiences ‘flashbacks’ and thinks about a time in which he was shot at
during his middle school years.”
Regarding the December 2023 shooting, J.F. claimed he and his
companions stopped to check on the dog after hitting it, but “ ‘someone came
4 Four prior referrals for the family with Child and Family Services
alleged general neglect of the children but were all closed.
6
out of nowhere and hit the window,’ ” causing them to drive off. Someone in
the car then stated the victim possessed a firearm, and J.F. “ ‘tried to call the
police but didn’t think it would do anything.’ ” J.F. said he was scared and
panicked during the incident and “was reminded of a time in which he was
previously shot at as a younger child; he believed he was going to be shot by
the victim.” He acknowledged his wrongdoing and expressed his apologies to
the victim.
The probation officer explained what she saw in video footage provided
by defense counsel. The victim’s vehicle stopped “at an angle, in front of the
suspect vehicle,” giving the Infiniti “sufficient space to continue driving away,
rather than stopping to engage in the altercation.” The victim and his cousin
approached the Infiniti without presenting weapons, but “[n]early instantly,
shots are heard.” In the probation officer’s view, J.F. “demonstrated
sophistication and planning” by fabricating the carjacking report to conceal
his involvement in the offense. J.F. had previously falsely reported the
carjacking of a vehicle related to a homicide.
Sahagun declined to submit a formal victim impact statement but
reported to the probation officer that he had undergone seven major surgeries
and had been hospitalized for one and half months, with ongoing physical
therapy. He was unable to work for nine months and continued to experience
physical pain and mental suffering.
Based on the seriousness of the offense and the entirety of the
probation report, the probation officer recommended that J.F. be adjudged a
ward of the court and, in addition to other orders, be committed to secure
track’s “Success and Opportunities Aspiring Readiness for Reentry”
(“SOARR”) program. The probation report explained that “[w]hile
participating in the SOARR program, the Minor will receive mental health
7
services, educational support, social and life skills, vocational training, and
other identified services to support the Minor while he is in the program.
The SOARR program will also provide a therapeutic environment for the
Minor to learn new skills, receive support, and prepare him for reentry back
into the community. In addition, he will continue to be afforded the following
services facilitated by community-based organizations: Fresh Lifelines for
Youth (offers youth law-related education pertaining to relevant laws and
their rights), The Beat Within (involves youth receiving five interrelated
topics each week and choosing one of the topics to write a one-page essay),
Art of Yoga (monthly modules that emphasize[] reflection, accountability, and
wellbeing), Success Centers (promotes job readiness and teaches life skills to
prepare youth for the transition to employment), Mind Body Awareness
Program (entails 10 topic areas with an emphasis on stress and anxiety
reduction, mindfulness, and emotional regulation), and drug and alcohol
education. Additionally, the Minor will be afforded the opportunity to
participate in the art program, faith-based services, and Large Muscle
Activity.”
3. Disposition Hearing
The contested disposition hearing was held over several days between
January and May 2025. We now summarize some of the relevant testimony.
Several family members gave testimony on the pain and suffering
Sahagun had endured and the difficulties he continued to experience as a
result of the shooting.
A.P. testified he was in the Infiniti during the shooting and was
arrested but not charged with any crime. During the pursuit, A.P. believed
he saw the passenger of the red SUV holding a rifle and told the others “they
might have a gun.” A.P. claimed that prior to the shooting, the Infiniti was
8
“blocked off” by the red SUV and was unable to navigate away safely, and
that Sahagun had one of his hands “in his back pants behind his waistline” as
he approached the Infiniti, which A.P. perceived as threatening. A.P.
confirmed that J.F. fired the shots at Sahagun but claimed he did not know
J.F. had a gun.
Daly City Police Detective Randy Ortiz testified the surveillance
footage of the incident showed that when the Infiniti and red SUV stopped at
the intersection, the Infiniti was not prevented from making a right turn and
driving away. The surveillance video also showed that Sahagun’s hands were
empty as he exited the red SUV, that he never reached to his back, and that
no firearm was ever found in the red SUV or around the crime scene area.
Dr. Kaylan Altis, a licensed clinical psychologist with a specialization
in forensic and adolescent psychology, evaluated J.F. in May 2024. J.F. told
Dr. Altis that his neighborhood was not “particularly safe,” and that he was
shot at while in middle school. Dr. Altis opined that such exposure often
results in hypervigiliance as a coping strategy. J.F. denied a history of
substance abuse or mental illness but reported suffering from occasional
anxiety.
Dr. Altis noted that J.F. was doing well in juvenile hall, and the reports
were overall positive despite some behavioral issues. J.F. was a leader in the
unit and showed empathy and strong maturity, and he seemed to be a good
candidate for rehabilitation. Regarding two negative incident reports, Dr.
Altis characterized J.F.’s misbehavior as “isolated” and acknowledged she did
not question him about them. Dr. Altis noted J.F. was “currently at a lower
level of care than the Secure Track, being in the [Youth Services Center or
YSC] programming. He has shown an ability to grow and mature in that
setting.”
9
Dr. Altis explained that scientific research has shown adolescent brains
remain underdeveloped into their early to mid-twenties. The prefrontal
cortex, which is related to self-control and executive function, tends to
develop later, and as a result, adolescents tend to make more emotionally
fueled, impulsive judgments.
To assess J.F.’s risk of reoffending, Dr. Altis used a structured
professional judgment tool called Structured Assessment of Violence in Youth
(“SAVRY”), which involves assessment of ten historical factors, six social
factors, and eight individual or clinical factors. Dr. Altis concluded that
despite the severity of the offense, J.F. did not fall into a high-risk category,
and he had a low to moderate risk of reoffending.
Of the six social factors (peer delinquency, peer rejection, stress and
poor coping, poor parental management, lack of personal or social support,
and community disorganization), Dr. Altis rated peer delinquency as a low to
moderate factor, and poor parental management as a moderate factor. Dr.
Altis expressed “concerns . . . that the parents are working a lot” and that
“their schedules leave some possible lapses in supervision.” She did not
consider the fact that in the May 2023 Pacifica Police Department report,
J.F.’s stepfather reported the parents’ concerns about J.F.’s associates and
asked the police to search their son’s phone. Dr. Altis explained the police
reports were not the focus of her evaluation, but she acknowledged it was
“very problematic that there were these deficits in supervision and
management.”
The juvenile court ordered J.F. committed to secure track. Though
finding Dr. Altis to be credible, the court disagreed with some of her
assessments, including her views that J.F. did not attempt to present himself
in an overly favorable light and that J.F.’s peer group was not delinquent, as
10
well as her overall assessment that J.F. was at low risk to reoffend. The
court also found J.F. was “disingenuous” with Dr. Altis about certain facts
that were demonstrably false, e.g., denying he was failing all of his classes.
The juvenile court emphasized the seriousness of the offense, as it
“could have easily been a fatality, and the minor could have very easily been
charged with a homicide.” While acknowledging it was “ill advised” for the
victim to pursue the suspect vehicle, the court observed J.F. was “armed with
a gun, which was never recovered,” and the court did not believe his claim of
self-defense. As the court explained, A.P.’s testimony was not credible and
was contradicted by other evidence, as no firearm was recovered from the
victim’s car, and video footage showed the victim did not reach to grab a gun.
Likewise, A.P.’s testimony that the red SUV boxed the Infiniti in was shown
to be false by the video footage. Furthermore, J.F.’s actions after the shooting
were “not indicative of self-defense. He got rid of the car. He swapped
phones with his mother. He wiped his phones. He reported that he was
kidnapped and that the car in question was stolen. An elaborate plan to not
take responsibility for his actions.” The court found these actions to be “very
concerning” and reflecting a high degree of criminal sophistication, as J.F.
“did everything to hide evidence, to lie about what happened. For a young
man, who was 16 years at the time . . . he was pretty determined to lie his
way through this as best he could. He was lawless. He was reckless. He
didn’t care about right or wrong. It was all about just hiding evidence to
protect himself and his friends.”
The juvenile court further emphasized the significant harm to the
victim resulting from J.F.’s actions. Sahagun was “gravely injured and has
experienced and will experience months of excruciating surgeries and pain
and will likely never the be same. . . . I know that he has had at least seven
11
surgeries lasting 9 to 12 hours, based on the testimony of his family, and was
hospitalized for a month and a half. . . . [H]e will likely not have a normal
life. . . . He’s in pain and he has physical limitations.”
Regarding J.F.’s behavior in custody, the juvenile court explained it
had “read carefully over all of the Behavioral Court Reports that were filed
with the court” and found “his behavior has been average. . . . He has had
some bumps in the road, but overall he is a helper and his behavior has been
satisfactory.” However, the court noted J.F. had had several rule violations,
which included the incident in which he attacked another youth with
“punches to the head.” Other violations included writings and drawings that
showed a preoccupation with guns, which the court found to be “a grave
concern.”
The juvenile court acknowledged J.F. had no prior delinquency history.
However, the court took into consideration J.F.’s involvement in the May
2023 incident in which he took his stepfather’s car, and the vehicle was used
in a homicide. There, as in the December 2023 incident, J.F. falsely reported
the car was stolen.
The juvenile court further remarked that it had considered “[w]hether
the programming, treatment and education offered and provided in the
[SYTF] is appropriate to meet the treatment and secure needs of a youth,
whether the goals of rehabilitation and community safely can be met by
assigning the youth to an alternative, less restricted disposition available to
the court.” The court found “that a less restrictive alternative disposition is
unsuitable.” As the court explained, “an award of custody to the parents
would be detrimental to the youth and that an award to a non-parent is
required to serve the minor’s best interest. The parents are incapable of
providing or having failed or neglected to provide proper maintenance,
12
training or education to the youth and the welfare of the youth requires that
the youth be taken from the custody of his parents. A return of the youth to
his home would be contrary to his welfare.”
The juvenile court committed J.F. to secure track with a maximum
term of seven years, a baseline of four years, and 504 days of credit. This
appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review
A minor may be removed from parental custody when necessary for the
minor’s welfare or for the safety and protection of the public. (§ 202,
subd. (a).) Until recently, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)5 was “the
state’s most restrictive placement for its most severe juvenile offenders.” (In
re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 902 (Miguel C.).) In 2020, Senate
Bill No. 823 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 337) closed the DJJ and
transferred its responsibilities to counties (§ 736.5, subds. (a), (e)).
Section 875 “governs the commitment of juvenile wards to the [SYTFs]
that have replaced the [DJJ] as the most restrictive placement alternative.”
(In re Tony R. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 395, 406.) The statute authorizes secure
track placement only if, among other findings, “[t]he court has made a finding
on the record that a less restrictive, alternative disposition for the ward is
unsuitable.” (§ 875, subd. (a)(3).) In making this determination, the court
must consider “all relevant and material evidence, including the
recommendations of counsel, the probation department, and any other agency
5 “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.)
13
or individual designated by the court to advise on the appropriate disposition
of the case.” (Ibid.)
“The court shall additionally make its determination based on all of the
following criteria: [¶] (A) The severity of the offense or offenses for which the
ward has been most recently adjudicated, including the ward’s role in the
offense, the ward's behavior, and harm done to victims. [¶] (B) The ward’s
previous delinquent history, including the adequacy and success of previous
attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the ward. [¶] (C) Whether the
programming, treatment, and education offered and provided in a secure
youth treatment facility is appropriate to meet the treatment and security
needs of the ward. [¶] (D) Whether the goals of rehabilitation and community
safety can be met by assigning the ward to an alternative, less restrictive
disposition that is available to the court. [¶] (E) The ward’s age,
developmental maturity, mental and emotional health, sexual orientation,
gender identity and expression, and any disabilities or special needs affecting
the safety or suitability of committing the ward to a term of confinement in a
secure youth treatment facility.” (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(A)–(E).)
We review a juvenile court’s placement decision for abuse of discretion.
(Miguel C., supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 908.) The juvenile court abuses its
discretion when factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the
evidence. (In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 5 (Carlos J.).) We will not
disturb a juvenile court’s factual findings when there is substantial evidence
to support them. (In re Khalid B. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1288.)
B. Less Restrictive, Alternative Disposition
As indicated, the juvenile court committed J.F. to secure track with a
maximum term of seven years. Consistent with the mandate of section 875,
subdivision (a)(3), the court made an express finding on the record that a less
14
restrictive, alternative disposition for J.F. was unsuitable. J.F. maintains
this finding was inadequate because the record lacked specific information
about less restrictive alternatives the court considered in reaching its
decision. We disagree. Dr. Altis testified that J.F.’s then-current YSC
programming was a lower level of care than secure track. The court also
expressly considered the option of returning J.F. to the custody of his parents.
On this record, we may reasonably infer the court weighed these specific
alternatives before making its decision to commit J.F. to secure track.
J.F. next maintains the juvenile court erred by not “providing any
substantive analysis of alternative placements.” But section 875 does not
require a court to state its reasoning, only to make a finding on the record
that less restrictive alternatives were unsuitable and, in doing so, to consider
the enumerated criteria in section 875, subdivision (a)(3)(A) through (E). The
juvenile court did so here.
In particular, the juvenile court emphasized the severity of the offense,
the harm to the victim, and the sophistication of J.F.’s conduct, while also
considering the programs described in the probation report, and the
behavioral reports of J.F.’s conduct since his arrest. J.F. does not dispute
that the offenses, including the dismissed offenses which the court was
permitted to consider under the plea deal, were severe; that his conduct both
during and after the shooting were highly concerning; and that the victim
suffered significant harm as a result of the shooting. (See § 875,
subd.(a)(3)(A).) The court could, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion,
conclude these factors weighed heavily in favor of committing J.F. to secure
track for the protection of the public. (§ 202, subd. (a).)
Additionally, the record amply supports the juvenile court’s
determination that maintaining J.F. in the less restrictive YSC program he
15
was in at the time of the disposition hearing would be inadequate for his
rehabilitation and for public safety. There was substantial evidence showing
that J.F.’s performance in custody was “average” and that he experienced
multiple “bumps in the road,” including incidents involving violence against
another youth and a fixation with firearms. Such evidence reasonably
supported the court’s “grave concern” over the firearm drawings given J.F.’s
firearm use in the instant case. Despite J.F.’s attempt to cast the record of
his conduct in juvenile hall in a light most favorable to him, substantial
evidence supports the court’s conclusion that J.F.’s conduct was more mixed,
and that more would be required for his rehabilitation.
As for the less restrictive option of returning J.F. to his parents’
custody, the record provides a sufficient basis for the juvenile court’s concern
that J.F.’s parents were susceptible to his manipulation and incapable of
adequately supervising him. Back in May 2023, J.F.’s stepfather had asked
the Pacifica Police Department to search J.F.’s phone out of concerns about
J.F.’s associates, and J.F. used the stepfather to help him file a false police
report in May 2023. Later, J.F. convinced his mother to swap phones with
him after the December 2023 shooting, and based on her statements to police,
the mother knew J.F. made this request because he had falsely reported to
police that his own phone had been stolen. On this record, the court
reasonably concluded that returning J.F. to his parents’ custody would be
inadequate for his rehabilitation and for public safety.
J.F. repeatedly emphasizes that this was his first offense and that he
had no record of prior dependency. But he cites no authority holding that a
prior dependency record is necessary for commitment to the most restrictive
placement. Nor is a juvenile court required to attempt a less restrictive
placement before committing a youth to the most restrictive one. (See, e.g.,
16
In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1159.) Notably, the totality of
J.F.’s relevant conduct included not only the December 2023 shooting, but the
subsequent false report of a carjacking, J.F.’s destruction of evidence, as well
as his link to a homicide in May 2023 and the related filing of a false police
report. Thus, while J.F. had no prior formal dependency case, the record
discloses a pattern of highly concerning unlawful conduct that supports the
juvenile court’s decision to commit J.F. to secure track.
In sum, the juvenile court did not err in finding that a less restrictive,
alternative disposition for J.F. would be unsuitable.
C. Probable Benefit of Secure Track Programming
J.F. argues the secure track commitment was an abuse of discretion
because the juvenile court failed to make specific findings that any programs
in secure track would benefit him, and the evidence fell short of
demonstrating the probable benefit of any secure track programs. We find no
abuse of discretion.
The probable benefit requirement is codified in section 734, which
states, “No ward of the juvenile court shall be committed to the [DJJ] unless
the judge of the court is fully satisfied that the mental and physical condition
and qualifications of the ward are such as to render it probable that he will
be benefited by the reformatory educational discipline or other treatment
provided by the [DJJ].” As one court explains, “[e]vidence of probable benefit
is required not only by section 734, but also by the language of section 202,
subdivision (b) mandating that delinquent minors ‘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.’ [Citation.] A similar mandate appears in rule 5.790(h) of the
California Rules of Court. That rule provides that, where a minor’s welfare
17
requires that he be removed from his parent’s custody [citation] (as the
juvenile court found in the present case), ‘[t]he decision regarding choice of
placement must take into account . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [t]hat the setting is the
environment best suited to meet the child’s special needs and best interest.’ ”
(Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 6.)
In Carlos J., Division Five of this appellate district provided guidance
regarding the initial showing required of the People to support a DJJ/DJF
commitment: “Considering the significance of a decision to send a minor to
the DJF and the statutory mandates of sections 202 and 734, it is reasonable
and appropriate to expect the probation department, in its report or
testimony, to identify those programs at the DJF likely to be of benefit to the
minor under consideration. Where a minor has particular needs, the
probation department should also include brief descriptions of the relevant
programs to address those needs. It will likely be acceptable for the
probation department to include substantially similar information about the
DJF in most of its reports, with appropriate updates and customization based
on the needs of the minor involved. [¶] The People bear the burden of
showing the appropriateness of a proposed placement, and the basic
information outlined above is properly considered part of the initial burden of
production on the issue and the minimum required substantial evidence of
probable benefit.” (Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 12, italics omitted.)
Carlos J. clarified, however, that “the probation department is not
required in its report and initial testimony to provide indepth information
about the DJF’s programs or to preemptively respond to even predictable
criticisms of the DJF. Under Evidence Code, section 664, where the
probation officer has identified programs of benefit to a minor and provided
brief information about the most important programs, it may be presumed
18
the probation officer’s recommendation is based on an assessment the
programs are available and appropriate. If a minor wishes to dispute the
availability or efficacy of particular programs, or to suggest that other
conditions at the DJF undermine the programs, the minor must present
sufficient evidence to reasonably bring into question the benefit he or she will
receive from the adoption of the probation department's recommendation.”
(Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 13, italics added.)
In the instant case, the probation department reported to the juvenile
court that the programming in secure track would include “mental health
services, educational support, social and life skills, vocational training, and
other identified services,” along with “a therapeutic environment for the
Minor to learn new skills, receive support, and prepare him for reentry back
into the community.” The report further indicated that J.F. would continue
to receive the “community-based” programs he was already receiving (e.g.,
Fresh Lifelines for Youth, The Beat Within, Art of Yoga, Success Centers,
Mind Body Awareness Program, Large Muscle Activity), with brief
descriptions of each.
J.F. insists the probation report lacked sufficient specificity to support
a probable benefit determination, but we conclude otherwise. Granted, the
probation department offered only a brief summary of available
programming, coupled with information about programs J.F. was already
receiving.6 But it remains the case that in-depth information was not
6 The People also point us to the individual rehabilitation plan filed with
the juvenile court on June 18, 2025. The People contend this plan constitutes
substantial evidence of the probable benefit of secure track programming, as
it contains specific details about the vocational, life skills, and clinical
services J.F. would receive in SOARR. But as J.F. validly points out, the plan
was developed in the weeks after the May 2025 disposition hearing. (See
§ 875, subd. (d)(1) [individual rehabilitation plan must be submitted to
19
required on the People’s initial showing (Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at
p. 13) and that the probation report provided a sufficient factual basis for the
court to infer and conclude there were available services at secure track in
various areas related to a youth’s physical, mental, and social development
that would likely be beneficial to J.F.’s rehabilitation.
Carlos J. does not compel a contrary conclusion. There, the record
established the minor required “intensive treatment” to address PTSD and
gang entrenchment, but “there was no evidence before the juvenile court
regarding any ‘intensive treatment’ appellant might receive at the DJF.”
(Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 10, italics added.) The “most critical
issue” for the juvenile court to consider in determining probable benefit in
that case was the need to weaken the youth’s gang affiliations, but the record
contained “no information about the nature of the gang intervention services”
available at DJF. (Id. at p. 11.)
Here, in contrast, we are not faced with a complete absence of
information in the record regarding the programming J.F. will receive at
secure track. As discussed, the probation report provided the juvenile court
with a summary of available services at secure track through the SOARR
program. And unlike the youth in Carlos J., J.F. does not have specific
mental or social needs (e.g., PTSD, gang entrenchment) that require
intensive treatment. Although there was evidence that J.F. suffered from
anxiety related to a past shooting incident, there was no suggestion that he
required specialized mental health services to treat it. As Carlos J.
explained, “[w]here a minor has particular needs,” the probation report
juvenile court within 30 days after court issues order committing youth to
secure track].) Because the individual rehabilitation plan did not exist at the
time of disposition, we do not consider it as providing substantial evidence of
probable benefit supporting the secure track commitment order.
20
should “include brief descriptions of the relevant programs to address those
needs.” (Carlos J., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 12, italics omitted.) But
where, as here, the youth does not have particular needs that require more
specific information, the probation report’s general summary of available
services is sufficient to make an initial showing of probable benefit. As such,
the juvenile court could reasonably conclude from the probation report that
the general mental health services, along with the educational and vocational
supports available through the SOARR program, would be of probable benefit
to J.F.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order committing J.F. to secure track is affirmed.
_________________________
Fujisaki, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Petrou, J.
_________________________
Rodríguez, J.
People v. J.F. (A173765)
21