J.
Filed 6/20/12 In re Paige J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re PAIGE J., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
PAIGE J.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F063351
(Super.
Ct. No. JW123630-03)
THE COURT
name="_ftnref1" title="">*
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of
Kendall D.
Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and
Charles A. French, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
The court
found that 15-year-old appellant, Paige J., was a person described in Welfare
and Institutions Code section 602
name="_ftnref2" title="">[1] after appellant admitted allegations charging
her with felony vehicular manslaughter
(count 1/Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1)), felony vehicle theft (count 2/Veh.
Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), driving without a license (count 7/Veh. Code, §
12500, subd. (a)), violating a previous grant of probation (count
8.041/102Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777), and four counts of misdemeanor
unlawfully driving a vehicle causing
6/Veh. Code, § 23104, subd. (a)).
On June 28,
2011, the court ordered appellant placed at the Forrest Ridge Youth and Family
Services (Forrest Ridge) facility in Iowa.
On appeal,
appellant contends the court exceeded its jurisdiction in placing her in an
out-of-state group home because it did not comply with certain statutory
requirements. We affirm.
FACTS
On January
16, 2011, sometime between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., appellant’s mother was
transported to the hospital by ambulance.
Afterwards appellant, who was unlicensed, drove two friends in her
mother’s truck to pick up three other friends and to look for someone from whom
to purchase marijuana. The group then returned
to appellant’s house and “hung out.â€
Later that evening appellant’s mother called and told appellant that she
had been released from the hospital.
Appellant and her friends decided to pick up appellant’s mother and
boarded the mother’s truck. Along the
way, appellant drove into a store parking lot where she suddenly sped up, lost
control of the truck and struck a light pole.
One of appellant’s friends was killed in the accident and another was
paralyzed from the neck down.
Appellant’s mother had not given her permission to use the truck.
On March 1,
2011, the district attorney filed a wardship petition charging appellant with
the offenses she admitted.
On March
17, 2011, appellant entered her plea in this matter.
On March
30, 2011, the court aggregated time from prior sustained petitions, set
appellant’s maximum term of confinement at seven years eight months, and
committed her to the Pathways Academy.
During the hearing, defense counsel
objected to the court’s stated intent to commit appellant to Forrest Ridge in
Iowa on the ground that there had not been a showing that in-state programs
would be ineffective in treating appellant.
On June 28,
2011, the court issued an order placing appellant at Forrest Ridge.
On August
19, 2011, defense counsel filed an objection to the court’s placement order
arguing that the placement did not comply with section 727.1’s requirement that
the choice of placement be based “upon selection of a safe setting that is the
least restrictive or most family like, and the most appropriate setting that is
available and in close proximity to the parent’s home….â€
On September 2, 2011, defense counsel
filed a petition to modify the court’s order placing appellant at Forrest Ridge
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 778).
On September 13, 2011, at a
hearing on the petition, defense counsel argued that the court’s order placing
appellant out of state was no longer appropriate because appellant had
successfully completed the Pathways Academy.
He also appeared to argue that there had been no showing that appellant
had any special needs or that if she did have such needs, that there were no
group homes in California that could address them.
After hearing testimony from the probation officer regarding service available
in group homes in California compared to services available at Forest Ridge,
the court found that in-state programs were unavailable or inadequate to meet
appellant’s needs and it denied the petition to modify its order placing
appellant at Forest Ridge.
DISCUSSION
Section
727.1, in pertinent part provides:
“(b) Unless otherwise
authorized by law, the court may not order the placement of a minor who is
adjudged a ward of the court on the basis that he or she is a person described
by either Section 601 or
602 in a
private residential facility or program that provides 24-hour supervision,
outside of the state, unless the court finds, in its order of placement, that
all of the following conditions are met:
In-state facilities or programs have been determined to be unavailable or
inadequate to meet the needs of the minor.
The State Department of Social Services or its designee has performed initial
and continuing inspection of the out-of-state residential facility or program
and has either certified that the facility or program meets all licensure
standards required of group homes operated in California or that the department
has granted a waiver to a specific licensing standard upon a finding that there
exists no adverse impact to health and safety, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
7911.1 of the Family Code.
The requirements of Section
7911.1 of the Family Code are met.â€
Family Code
section 7911.1, in pertinent part provides:
On or after March 1, 1999, a county shall be required to obtain an assessment
and placement recommendation by a county multidisciplinary team prior to
placement of a child in an out-of-state group home facility. [¶] … [¶]
“(f)(1) “A multidisciplinary team
shall consist of participating members from county social services, county
mental health, county probation, county superintendents of schools, and other
members as determined by the county.â€
Appellant
contends the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in ordering her to be
placed out of state at Forrest Ridge because the court did not comply with
Family Code section 7911.1, subdivision (d) or Welfare and Institutions Code
section 727.1, subdivision (b)(2). We
find that appellant forfeited these issues by her failure to raise them in the
juvenile court.
In People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 (Scott), the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s failure to object
in the trial court forfeits “claims
involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its
discretionary sentencing choices.
Included in this category are cases in which the stated reasons
allegedly do not apply to the particular case, and cases in which the court
purportedly erred because it double-counted a particular sentencing factor,
misweighed the various factors, or failed to state any reasons or give a
sufficient number of valid reasons.†(
essence, claims deemed waived on appeal involve sentences which, though
otherwise permitted by law, were imposed in a procedurally or factually flawed
manner.†(Id. at p. 354, italics added.)
Appellant’s claim that the court
failed to comply with the requirements of section 727.1, subdivision (b)(1) and
Family Code section 7911.1 amounts to claim that her commitment to Forrest
Ridge was imposed in a procedurally and/or factually flawed manner. Further, although defense counsel objected to
appellant’s out-of-state placement, neither appellant nor defense counsel
objected to the placement on the grounds she now asserts for challenging the
court’s order on appeal. Accordingly, we
conclude that appellant forfeited her claim that the court erred in committing
her to Forrest Ridge because it failed to comply with the code sections noted
above.
Appellant contends that she may
raise these issues on appeal despite her failure to raise them in the juvenile
court through an appropriate objection because her placement at Forrest Ridge
amounted to an unauthorized sentence that can be challenged on appeal even though
no challenge was raised in the trial court.
Appellant misconstrues the meaning of an unauthorized sentence. A sentence is unauthorized “where it could
not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case[, such
as] where the court violates mandatory provisions governing the length of
confinement.†(Scott,
supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 354.) Appellant’s placement at Forrest Ridge did
not constitute an unauthorized sentence because the juvenile court could
lawfully place her there, although it was required to comply with certain
statutory requirements. Accordingly, we
reject appellant’s challenges to her placement at Forrest Ridge in Iowa.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before
Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] All further statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise noted.
