People v. L.K. (In re L.K.)

• Docket Number: F085322
• Decision Date: 18 September 2023
• Parties: In re L.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. L.K., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1

In re L.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.K., Defendant and Appellant.

F085322

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

September 18, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County No 22CEJ600289-1 . Virna L. Santos, Judge.

Sangeeta Sinha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Michael A. Canzoneri Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT ^[*]

INTRODUCTION

L.K., a minor, raises two issues on appeal following the juvenile court's order denying him deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). First, L.K. contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by not finding him suitable for DEJ, and second that the court improperly ordered his driver's license revoked as a condition of his probation.

BACKGROUND

On November 27, 2021, at around 1:30 a.m., L.K. borrowed a vehicle that belonged to his girlfriend's mother for an errand. He did not have a valid driver's license. While driving on Highway 180 at approximately 75 miles per hour in the left lane he approached a vehicle that was stopped in the center median with the hazard lights on. When L.K. came upon the stopped vehicle, he saw a person sitting down in his lane. L.K. attempted to swerve but the left front of the vehicle hit the victim, Devan Elayda, and she died at the scene. L.K. fled the scene because he was scared. He drove the vehicle to his grandmother's house and told his girlfriend about what happened. The next day, L.K.'s aunt contacted the authorities and advised them that L.K. wanted to turn himself in.

L.K. gave a voluntary statement to an officer. He said he used his girlfriend's mother's vehicle to pick up something from a friend. He was driving home when he saw a vehicle stopped on the left side of the freeway and a person sitting in the middle of the lane ahead of him. He was unable to avoid hitting her. He drove away because he was scared. He did not have a driver's license.

The Fresno County District Attorney's Office filed a wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) alleging one count of leaving the scene of an accident involving death or permanent serious injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(2)).^[1] L.K. admitted the offense for purposes of being assessed for DEJ eligibility. The People filed a determination that L.K. was eligible for DEJ but recommended the court find L.K. unsuitable. The juvenile court held a suitability hearing and found L.K. not suitable for DEJ. The court adjudged L.K. a ward, placed him under the supervision of probation, ordered him to serve 60 days in the Juvenile Justice Campus and complete 80 hours of community service, ordered his license revoked, and ordered that he abide by other various terms and conditions of probation.

DISCUSSION

I. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Determining L.K. Was Not Suitable for DEJ

L.K argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in focusing on his poor track record in finding that he would not benefit from DEJ and failed to consider all the relevant factors, specifically L.K.'s behavior after the incident. The People disagree arguing the court did not abuse its discretion in finding L.K. not suitable for DEJ. We agree with the People.

A. Relevant Facts

In its report, the probation department recommended that the juvenile court find L.K. unsuitable for DEJ. Citing L.K.'s poor attendance at school and low number of credits towards graduation, the report questioned whether L.K.'s mother could provide the proper support for L.K. to be successful. The report recommended that L.K. should instead spend time in custody and receive individual counseling.

At the suitability hearing, the prosecutor asked the juvenile court to find L.K. not suitable for DEJ. The prosecutor's first concern was L.K.'s ability to perform in the DEJ program with less supervision. The prosecution noted L.K.'s mother's statement that L.K. is "generally compliant, does not stay out past curfew, and if he does, he will let her know. Obviously, what the [c]ourt has before it is the case where the minor was not only out past curfew, but he was driving a vehicle that was not his own." Second, the prosecutor had concerns about L.K.'s lack of truthfulness such as "why the minor was out at the time he was out" which was "truly never answered." L.K. said he was out eating or grabbing food, then said he had to go to a friend's house, and "evaded that issue when questioned by probation." As such, the prosecutor expressed "concerns about the truthfulness and how it relates to an overall picture of whether or not [L.K.] can be suitable for a program that's going to require him to follow a pretty-a more lax form of supervision compared to regular probation." The prosecutor also pointed out that L.K. was driving without a license and driving a vehicle not his own, and "ultimately an individual was struck and killed." "[T]he fact that he was out, unlicensed, and being an inexperienced driver could most definitely have contributed to and most likely did contribute to his striking her in this instance." The prosecutor argued, "It's unbelievable to me that he could have struck a human being. A witness mentioned that the human being went airborne-and not stop." Last, the prosecutor noted that L.K. had only nine credits towards graduation, which "[a]t his age, I think there is a picture that we don't have of what's going on. Maybe it's substance abuse. Maybe there is some reason that he didn't stop that he thought he could get in trouble for."

Defense counsel understood that "this is a very tragic and sensitive situation" but noted that the offense is DEJ eligible. Defense counsel asserted that L.K. "recognizes how serious this is," but accepted responsibility and is requesting DEJ. Counsel argued to the juvenile court that in order for it to find L.K. not suitable for DEJ, it had to "find that he would not benefit from the education, treatment, and rehabilitation of DEJ." It was further argued that DEJ "will provide the same amount of supervision for [L.K.], and really the only difference will be that he can't do custody time." "I know probation outlines other reasons they find he's not suitable. I think the biggest issue in this report was school. And I know that is very important to the [c]ourt. [L.K.] is pretty straightforward with me about school. He has not-he has not been going to school. He's pretty much just been doing his own thing." However, defense counsel noted L.K. "reenrolled back in Crescent View and started taking it seriously again." Counsel acknowledged there were several years where L.K. blew it at school but was told recently that at the rate L.K. is going he could graduate by next year. "[H]e's here now trying to make it right and trying to move forward. He has a different level of maturity now than he did back then, and I think that that shows that he is amenable to the rehabilitation and treatment of DEJ because it's about what he can do going forward." Counsel mentioned that no substance abuse was noted. He also acknowledged L.K. had gang tattoos but said L.K. plans to cover them up and is not associated with the gang anymore. He agreed L.K. could benefit from counseling, as suggested in the probation report, and stated that could be done through DEJ.

As for supervised home detention, defense counsel noted L.K. was complying. Defense counsel addressed L.K.'s failures to check in explaining L.K.'s first failure to check in was because he had just been released and the second failure to check in from September 29 through October 13, 2022, was when there was a death in the family. Counsel speculated that because L.K. had a court date in the second time period it caused him confusion. Also, counsel noted that although L.K. left the scene of a fatal accident, he turned himself in the next day and took responsibility. Finally, defense counsel argued that any consequences and rehabilitative measures that needed to be imposed could be accomplished through DEJ.

The prosecution responded that "the issue with DEJ is the familial support that the minor would have to help him accomplish DEJ and not set him up to fail." "[M]ost concerning is his mother's statements about him just not wanting to go to school," attendance issues, and failure to check in while on supervised release. The prosecutor argued that L.K. requires "a higher level of supervision than DEJ." DEJ provides a "much lower level of oversight than formal probation supervision." The prosecution also clarified that L.K. was dropped from McLane High School in 2021 and was then enrolled in Crescent View in 2021. The prosecution said that "[a]fter this event happened, he just stayed home." L.K.'s mother had commented that L.K. "does not want to come to school."

The juvenile court responded as follows: "Here's where the track record matters. The track record of being able to supervise yourself and have respect for what your duties are which are to go to school, to mind your parents, to abide by a curfew, you know, and stay away from improper influences. And the track record that brings us here is that." "I'm going by your track record, the track record that brought you to that day when you were out in the middle of the night in somebody else's car-is what I have to go on to see if you can be trusted with less supervision. I find that that track record is poor. I don't miscount any of the other things that your attorney has said, and we will take those into...