Filed 8/20/26 In re R.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.C., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B344688
Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 2024005922)
(Ventura County)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
R.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
R.C. appeals from the juvenile court judgment adjudicating
him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 602, subd. (a))
after it sustained allegations of assault with a semiautomatic
firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)), with personal firearm use
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
and criminal street gang enhancements (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5,
subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The court ordered R.C. committed
to a secure youth treatment facility (SYTF) with a baseline of
three years and a maximum term of 17 years. (§ 875, subd. (a).)
R.C. contends substantial evidence does not support the
court’s finding that a less restrictive alternative disposition was
unsuitable. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2
Case No. 2022006792
In 2022, when R.C. was 14 years old, he admitted section
602 petition allegations that he carried a loaded, unregistered
firearm in public (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(6)), and was a
minor in possession of a concealable firearm (Pen. Code, § 29610).
The juvenile court declared the offenses to be felonies and placed
R.C. on probation without wardship for a maximum period of six
months. (§ 725, subd. (a).) The terms included 20 hours
community service, participation in treatment programs, and
prohibited possession of any firearm, ammunition, or
gang-related items.
R.C. unsuccessfully completed the terms of probation and
was placed on deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) for up to 36
months. (§ 790 et seq.) The terms included participation in
treatment programs including anger management and gang
intervention services. He was prohibited from possessing gang-
related items. DEJ was later terminated as unsuccessful based
on the conduct in case No. 2024001883, described below.
Case No. 2024001883
On January 20, 2024, when R.C. was 16, police observed
2 Because R.C. admitted the charges, the facts are taken
from the probation reports.
2
him picking evidence off the ground at the scene of a shooting.
R.C. was in possession of an unspent round of the same type and
brand as that used in the shooting. He was housed at the
juvenile facility (JF).
R.C. admitted a petition alleging felony possession of
ammunition by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd.
(a)(1)). The juvenile court declared R.C. a ward in case No.
2022006792 and placed him in the JF for 120 days, to be followed
by 30 days’ electronic monitoring.
Case No. 2024005922
Police linked R.C. to the January 20 shooting. The
investigation established that R.C. saw rival gang members
“tagging” a wall with gang graffiti in his gang’s territory. He
fired approximately nine rounds at the rival gang members, with
several striking their vehicle. One bullet entered the vehicle.
R.C. sent pictures of himself holding a semiautomatic
handgun, flashing a gang sign, and holding an unspent round of
ammunition. He requested a fellow gang member provide him
with additional ammunition. A semiautomatic handgun and an
unspent round of ammunition were found in his bedroom.
A subsequent petition was filed. R.C. admitted an
allegation of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code,
§ 245, subd. (b)) and admitted personal firearm and criminal
street gang enhancements (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5, subd. (a),
186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
JF conduct
While in custody at the JF, R.C. committed 31 disciplinary
violations, including five incidents of causing a disturbance, 18
incidents of possessing contraband (including three with “gang
glorification”), and participating in 10 fights. In three of these
3
fights, he was the aggressor. One incident seriously injured a
staff member.
R.C. admitted his fights at JF violated his probation in case
No. 2022006792 (§ 777).
Disposition
The juvenile court stated it had read the probation report.
The court concluded: “And having reviewed all of the evidence
and taking into consideration the appropriate factors which are
to be considered in . . . W & I Code Section 875, I do reach the
conclusion that a commitment to a less restrictive alternative
disposition is unsuitable and that a commitment to SYTF . . . is
needed to meet the treatment and security needs of the ward.”
The court committed R.C. to an SYTF for a baseline of three
years and a maximum term of 17 years.
DISCUSSION
“ ‘ “We review the [juvenile] court’s placement decision for
an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] We review the court’s findings
for substantial evidence, and ‘ “[a] trial court abuses its discretion
when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in
the evidence.” ’ ” ’ ” (In re A.M. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 440, 448.)
“ ‘We will not disturb the juvenile court’s findings when there is
substantial evidence to support them.’ ” (In re Khalid B. (2015)
233 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1288.)
“ ‘ “ ‘ “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 Juvenile Court Law,” ’ ” ’ ” which includes “ ‘ ‘the
protection and safety of the public” ’ ” and “ ‘ “rehabilitative
objectives.” ’ ” (In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150,
1154–1155; see § 202, subds. (a) & (b).)
4
“[T]he commitment of juvenile wards to the [SYTFs] . . .
have replaced the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) as the most
restrictive placement alternative.” (In re Tony R. (2023) 98
Cal.App.5th 395, 406.) A juvenile court may commit a ward to an
SYTF if the following criteria are met: “(1) The juvenile is
adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on an
offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 that was
committed when the juvenile was 14 years of age or older. [¶] (2)
The adjudication described in paragraph (1) is the most recent
offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated. [¶] (3) The
court has made a finding on the record that a less restrictive,
alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable.” (§ 875, subd.
(a)(1)–(3).)
At issue here is the third criterion. To determine whether
a less restrictive alternative disposition is unsuitable, “the court
shall consider all relevant and material evidence, including the
recommendations of counsel, [and] the probation department.”
(§ 875, subd. (a)(3).) The probation report here and the
prosecutor recommended SYTF. R.C.’s counsel requested a JF
commitment.
“The court shall additionally make its [SYTF]
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
5
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).)
As discussed below, substantial evidence here supports
these criteria and commitment to an SYTF.
(A) Severity of the offense
Counsel does not dispute that the most recent offense was
serious and dangerous. R.C. shot approximately nine times at
members of a rival gang in response to their “tagging” a wall.
Although none were injured, the bullets hit their vehicle. The
conduct demonstrated R.C.’s willingness to use deadly force to
enforce gang territories.
(B) Delinquent history and rehabilitative attempts
R.C. was previously placed on probation without wardship
for carrying a concealable loaded firearm in public not registered
to him. (§ 725, subd. (a); Pen. Code, §§ 25850, subd. (c)(6),
29610.) He unsuccessfully completed probation and was on DEJ
(§ 790 et seq.) when he committed the current shooting. R.C.’s
delinquent history is evidence that previous rehabilitative efforts
were ineffective to prevent him from committing weapons
offenses.
And while in custody, R.C. committed 31 disciplinary
violations, including possessing gang contraband and
participating in 10 fights. In one gang-related incident, R.C. and
6
several others attempted to charge into the opposite side of the
unit to attack other residents. In another incident, R.C. and
three other residents physically attacked one other resident. In
one attack, a staff member was seriously injured. These
violations are substantial evidence of the inadequacy of a JF
placement to rehabilitate the minor.
The probation report noted that for the preceding two
months, R.C. had an “excellence” rating at the JF, which is the
highest level of behavior. He had previously been at that level
intermittently between disciplinary incidents. But these periods
of compliance did not preclude an SYTF commitment. (See In re
A.M., supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at pp. 444, 451.)
(C) SYTF programming
In its “ ‘ initial showing required to support [an SYTF]
commitment,’ . . . ‘the probation department, in its report or
testimony, [should] identify those programs at the [SYTF] 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.’ [Citation.] However, ‘the probation department is
not required in its report and initial testimony to provide in[-]
depth information about the [SYTF’s] programs. . . . 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.’ ” (In re A.M., supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 450,
italics omitted.)
The probation report here identified SYTF programs it
7
found appropriate. It described 13 SYTF programs and three
enrichment programs that addressed areas including:
independent living skills; preparing for future employment,
housing, and education; healthy boundaries, diversity, and
respect; violence prevention; religious counseling; and
construction trade training. The latter was particularly
appropriate based on R.C.’s desire to attend a trade school. The
report also described behavioral health programs at SYTF,
including Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT), which “is designed
to alter how clients think and make judgments about what is
right and wrong” through “education, group counseling, and
structured exercises.”3
Also included was evidence-based substance abuse
treatment. That treatment was appropriate for R.C. because he
had a history of alcohol, marijuana, and Xanax use, and admitted
he was intoxicated when he committed the shooting. This case is
thus unlike In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, upon which
R.C. relies, where the probation report failed to identify or
describe programs at the Division of Juvenile Facilities likely to
benefit the minor. (Id. at p. 4.)
The probation report also noted two other benefits of an
SYTF commitment. First, SYTF requires court review hearings
3 The probation report stated that MRT uses “a cognitive-
behavioral approach . . . . Moral reasoning is how people make
decisions about what they should or should not do in a given
situation. Youth are confronted with the consequences of their
behavior and the effects it has on their family, friends, and
community. . . . Twelve steps are completed during weekly
meetings.” (See McGarvey, Juvenile Justice and Mental Health:
Innovation in the Laboratory of Human Behavior (2012) 53
Jurimetrics J. 97, 108.)
8
at least every six months to evaluate the minor’s progress in the
programs provided. (§ 875, subd. (e)(1)(A).) Second, it allows the
court to retain jurisdiction over R.C. until age 25. (§ 607, subd.
(c); see Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b).)
R.C. contends that the SYTF programs did not specifically
address gang renunciation. But he forfeited that purported
deficiency by failing to present evidence in the trial court “ ‘to
dispute the availability or efficacy of particular programs.’ ” (In
re A.M., supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 450.)
The probation report concluded an SYTF commitment was
“both necessary and justified. A prolonged commitment serves
the interests of public safety, while holding the youth accountable
for his actions and also providing him with the treatment and
rehabilitation needed to address the root causes of his behavior.”
Substantial evidence supports this criterion.
(D) Alternative dispositions
Substantial evidence also supports the criterion that “an
alternative, less restrictive disposition” was not available to meet
“the goals of rehabilitation and community safety.” (§ 875, subd.
(a)(3)(D).)
The court properly considered R.C.’s failure to succeed in
the less restrictive dispositions previously imposed: probation
without wardship, DEJ, and approximately one year in the JF.
(In re A.R. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1081–1082.) The
probation report listed JF programs in which R.C. had
participated, but concluded “his behavior has presented ongoing
safety and security concerns.” For example, while at JF, R.C.
possessed gang paraphernalia and continued his violent behavior,
including attacking other wards and participating in a gang-
related attack. The probation report also relied in part on an
9
Ohio Youth Assessment System evaluation, which concluded R.C.
was a moderate risk to reoffend in the community.
R.C.’s counsel did not request the court consider any
placement other than JF. Substantial evidence supported the
conclusions that a disposition other than SYTF could not meet
the goals of rehabilitation or community safety, and that a less
restrictive disposition would be unsuitable.
(E) Maturity and special needs
There was no evidence that R.C.’s age, mental or emotional
health, or other special needs would “affect[] the safety or
suitability” of an SYTF commitment. (§ 875, subd. (a)(3)(E).)
A behavioral health clinician diagnosed R.C. with
adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct and
posttraumatic stress disorder, which were being treated with
medication. But no showing was made that this would affect “the
safety or suitability” of an SYTF commitment.
At the time of the disposition, R.C. was four months away
from his 18th birthday. According to R.C. and his mother, he was
in good physical and mental health. The probation report found
no major concerns regarding R.C.’s safety at an SYTF.
Substantial evidence supports this criterion for an SYTF
commitment.
Conclusion
Substantial evidence supported the criteria in favor of an
SYTF commitment. Based on the record before it, the juvenile
court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that a less
restrictive alternative disposition was unsuitable.
10
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BALTODANO, J.
We concur:
CODY, P. J.
YEGAN, J.
11
Kevin G. DeNoce, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Tonja R. Torres, 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, Assistant
Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Chung L. Mar, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.