People v. O.P. (In re O.P.)

• Docket Number: C099858
• Decision Date: 24 September 2024
• Citation: People v. O.P. (In re O.P.), C099858 (Cal. App. Sep 24, 2024)
• Parties: In re O.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. O.P., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
• Court: California Court of Appeals

1

In re O.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. O.P., Defendant and Appellant.

C099858

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

September 24, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super Ct. No. JV135755

WISEMAN, J. ^[*]

The minor, O.P., admitted he committed a lewd and lascivious act on a child under 14 years old and the juvenile court committed the minor to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for two years. After the Legislature realigned the juvenile justice system, the court recalled the commitment and committed the minor to a secure youth treatment facility (SYTF) and immediately stepped down his commitment level to global positioning system (GPS) monitoring. On appeal, the minor first argues the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to place him in the SYTF because he was over 25 at the time of his placement. Second, the minor further challenges the juvenile court's denial of his motion to modify the second commitment order arguing the county improperly failed to provide him with housing. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider the commitment to the SYTF but will affirm the juvenile court on his second argument.^[1]

I. BACKGROUND

While the minor was subject to other juvenile justice proceedings not relevant here, the prosecution filed a second amended petition under Welfare and Institutions Code^[2] section 602. It alleged two counts that the minor committed lewd and lascivious acts on K.D., a child under 14, and two counts the minor assaulted K.D. with the intent to commit rape. (Pen Code, §§ 220, 288, subd. (a), 288, subd. (b)(1).)

According to the intake report, the minor was between 15 and 17 years old when he sexually assaulted the six- or seven-year-old victim. The victim reported the minor would wake her up from nap time to try to make her orally copulate him. If the victim refused, the minor would not feed her or her siblings lunch. The minor also threatened to lie about the victim to her parents to get her in trouble. The victim further reported the minor would masturbate in front of her and make her watch. He also took her hand and tried to make her touch his penis. The victim could not remember how many times the minor assaulted her, but she had clear memories of two episodes.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the minor admitted responsibility to one count of lewd and lascivious conduct (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)), with the understanding he would be committed to the DJJ for two years and he would be required to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290). The maximum term of confinement for this admission was eight years. In conjunction with this disposition, the juvenile court dismissed the remaining charges and the prosecution withdrew its motion to transfer the minor to a court of criminal jurisdiction. On June 16, 2022, the juvenile court committed the minor to the DJJ for two years. He was 25 years old at the time.

After the minor was committed to the DJJ, he was placed in the sexual behavioral treatment program.

In January 2023, the probation department filed a petition to recall the minor's commitment to DJJ pursuant to Senate Bill No. 823 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 337), which realigned the juvenile justice system. Until recently, DJJ was "the state's most restrictive placement for its most severe juvenile offenders." (In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 902.) In 2020, the Legislature enacted juvenile justice realignment by passing Senate Bill No. 823. Implementing the Legislature's juvenile justice realignment program required the eventual closure of DJJ and the transfer of its responsibilities to California counties. (§ 736.5, subd. (a).) The county-level equivalent of DJJ is a secure track commitment, also known as a SYTF. (§§ 875, 875.5.) The Sacramento County SYTF is the Valley Oak Youth Academy (VOYA).

At the time of the probation department's petition to recall his commitment, the minor was working on stage one of the sexual behavioral treatment program. The probation department opposed housing the minor at VOYA because he was 26 years old. Instead, it recommended the minor be continued as a ward of the court and released on GPS monitoring until he completed the required sexual behavioral treatment program.

The court granted the probation department's petition and ordered the probation department to prepare a reentry plan.

The prosecution followed this order with a petition to house the minor at VOYA where he could complete the sexual behavioral treatment program, while the probation department asked the juvenile court to house the minor at an adult facility. The prosecution argued releasing the minor on GPS monitoring would place the community at great risk.

The juvenile court granted the minor's motion to apply his DJJ commitment credits toward his two-year commitment term and ordered the minor to be transferred to the county jail pending disposition.

The county counsel also filed a brief opposing VOYA housing for the minor. County counsel argued the court lacked jurisdiction over the minor as it had not committed him to a SYTF prior to the date he turned 25. The county counsel further argued placing the minor at VOYA would have "immense impacts" because he would have to be housed alone in a fully staffed separate unit.

The probation department's reentry case plan noted the minor did not have a place to live upon his release. His father was unable to house him due to restrictions placed on him by his landlord and the minor could not live with other family members because they had children in the home. While the probation department was attempting to assist him with funding, no agreements had been reached. The only available option for housing set forth in the reentry plan was the Exodus Project, but that was limited to a maximum of a three-day hotel voucher. The reentry plan also indicated the minor would enroll in college and would work as a caregiver for his father.

At the June 21, 2023, hearing, the juvenile court committed the minor to VOYA with an immediate transfer to the less restrictive step-down program of GPS monitoring and transitional housing at Build 2 Thrive. At the hearing, probation represented the Build 2 Thrive program was a pay-per-month program and the minor said he had access to stimulus money that would allow him to pay for that housing.

At the end of July, the probation department filed a progress report that stated the minor was living at Build 2 Thrive, meeting his GPS conditions, had completed his Penal Code section 290 registration, and was enrolled in a medical assistant program at a local college.

In early August 2023, the minor contacted his probation officer and said he was no longer allowed to live at the Build 2 Thrive program and needed transitional housing. According to the program, the minor was told to leave the home because he failed to pay rent and had conflicts with the house manager and other residents. The next day, the probation department provided the minor with a hotel room voucher.

Later in the month, the minor told the probation department he could live with "family" in Reno, Nevada. The probation department was not sure this would work due to the minor's commitment order with VOYA but asked the minor for the address and information on everyone who lived at that residence. Despite representing he would provide this information, the minor did not.

As of the end of August, the minor had secured a room for a month in a home. A week later, he reported he got into an argument with the homeowner and was told to leave the home.

In early September 2023, the minor filed a petition to modify the commitment order pursuant to section 779.5 asserting the probation department failed to provide him with adequate housing and treatment. At the hearing, counsel represented the probation department was "wholly failing [the minor] in that they're not able to provide him with treatment, programming, and even the basic needs of rehabilitation, which is housing, and we can't expect [the minor] to be successful with the JSO or drug counseling when he is currently homeless."

In mid-September, the probation department continued its efforts to secure housing for the minor through the 211 housing coordinator with several providers to no avail. The 211 housing coordinator ultimately found housing at the Salvation Army shelter. The minor called to inquire about any other options. He said the shelter would not be a safe space for him or good for his mental health because it was a reminder of being incarcerated. The minor also said he did not wish to work with the 211 coordinator anymore to find housing. The minor represented he would try to find shelters he learned about from friends and sleep in a friend's car in the meantime.

At the September 19, 2023, hearing, the juvenile court ordered probation to provide a response at an October 5, 2023, hearing. The minor represented to the juvenile court he was homeless. The juvenile court ordered probation to provide hotel vouchers pending that next hearing.

Later in September, the minor sought an order shortening time asserting the probation department had not given him hotel vouchers from September 19 to October 5, 2023. The application further stated the probation department could supply only a three-day voucher starting on September 20, 2023.

The court granted the order shortening time and issued an order to show cause (OSC) as to why the probation department should not be held in contempt.

The probation department filed a reentry plan update where they noted the attempts made to assist the minor to secure housing. The report also stated the minor was unable to work as his father's...