WPC~ QvXC!ϟYIsN,'vb,X˛w;Hp!ب_:26 IV[jjafZxӗ) o<CZ1:8+쪽qm׮9q&ƫm"9 G6+s~o'p_ t DBL׶qekf=, )yX)cO߰w3ˈn{HT8oH>j ԓDéȠ3"$B稟պ 5Nq=Cx=&E& g߅!k+xݐ"\gBop%;'>mi(s0Q$vTu%"m"c `?y 2bJ!'km l Y"uXs64:Knj69?LK1UEt2쵣Ml}]sHm\ q('`"U> 0n 0U6  0 V 0: 0B 0nT 0? P 0Q B" 0C? J U@ D" 0:0 0@#U N % M(N?^ AwM4Qe mg\  `&Times New Roman' IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA &Rita L. Swenor 0 .   <:Default Para8dl 6Plain TextK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS<6X9`(Courier New0; .Footer  ;1HP X`h;:8Page Number<:Footnote Ref< :Footnote Tex64Hyperlink F  )..      ݰXXݰݰ  _!  X!  ,$  $  (2$ !..      ݰXXݰݰ   d($     @ !..      ݰXXݰݰ  _9% P X`hX9      1    ݀Allreferencestorespondentsbriefshallbedesignated RB.All  referencestoappellantsopeningbriefshallbedesignated _AOB_.  \  `(Times New Romane  !..      ݰXXݰݰ  9% P X`hX9!  X!          2  I  ݀Peoplev.Pride,supra,wasadeathpenaltycaseinwhichtheonlyissue  relatedtojuvenilelawwasthedefendantsclaimthatanhonorable  dischargefromCYAmeantthattheunderlyingoffensecouldnotbeused  againsthiminthepenaltyphase.(supra,3Cal.4thatp.256.)Thiscase  providesnoauthorityforthepositionthattherecurrentlyaretreatment  programsatCYAwhichwouldbeavailabletoappellant. : !..      ݰXXݰݰ  9% P X`hX9      3    ݀Whilerespondentcriticizesthevalueofappellantscitationtoa2002  reporttotheSenatewhichincludedCYArecidivismstatisticsfrom1994  (RB1213),theauthorityuponwhichthecourtinTyroneO.wasbased  wasa1981CEBPracticemanualwitha1988supplement.Thisishardly  currentinformationastotheprogramsavailableatCYAforappellants  rehabilitation.  !..      ݰXXݰݰ  6" P X`X6!  X!        4  :  ݀Appellanthasnotmadethisargumentonappeal.(2N$ !..      ݰXXݰݰ  Xݰ  0  #|x($..      ݰXXݰݰ\\NTFDAP\Jomo,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX>1 ubm,ebsite U !..      ݰXXݰݰ  _        XX8ݰdd8  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA      FIRSTAPPELLATEDISTRICT,DIVISIONFIVE    InreAndrewG.,   X      ` )      X X9%P P P X`hX9AMinor X      ` )No.A105329    X X<% P X`hP P P X<______________________________________) x   P     X      ` ) q   PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA,) j   P     X      ` ) c   X 6" X`hX6PlaintiffandRespondent, ` ) \   X <% P X`h  X<Ӏvs.    X      ` ) U   P     X      ` ) N  ANDREWG.,   X      ` )No.188442 G  P     X      ` )(AlamedaCounty) @  P  DefendantandAppellant.   ` )     9 ______________________________________) 2   APPELLANTSREPLYBRIEF $t ******** f !  X!  'P   '  Introduction  ݌ X Ќ$ XP  $   l<`    P ThisreplybriefisdesignedsolelytorespondtotheAttorney J Generalscontentionsthatrequirefurtherdiscussionforproper < determinationoftheissuesraisedonappeal.Thisbriefdoesnotrespond !. tothoseissuesthatappellantbelieveswereadequatelydiscussedinthe #   openingbrief,andappellantintendsnowaiverofthoseissuesbynot %!" expresslyreiteratingtheminthisreplybriefXXݰ.  _   1     _    '#$ _  ݰXXݰݰ Argument    X X  6"P P P X`X6 THECOURTABUSEDITSDISCRETIONWHENIT  ORDEREDAPPELLANTCOMMITTEDTOCYAAS  AFIRSTOFFENDERWHENTHEREWASNO  EVIDENCEOFPROBABLEBENEFITTO   APPELLANTFROMTHECOMMITMENT    X X  <% P X`hP P P X<    P Asfullydiscussedinappellantsopeningbrief,atthetimeofthe q   offenseappellantwas14yearsold,hadnopriorjuvenilerecord,andin c  thecommissionoftheoffense,inwhichallbutoneofhiscoparticipants U  werebetween17and19yearsold.(CT333334,338,340,355,366;RT G 2,18.) 9  XCriticaltothiscourtsreviewofthejuvenilecourtsorder +{ committingappellanttoCYAiswhetherornottherewassubstantial m evidencetosupportthecourtsfindingof probablebenefittoappellant _ fromhiscommitmenttoCYA.(InreAdrianR.(2000)85Cal.App.4th Q 448,452.)TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasclearlydefined substantial C evidence:   5  X X X6"P P P X`X6 AsweexplainedinPeoplev.Bassett(1968)69Cal.2d "' 122,138139: Thecriticalwordinthedefinitionis #    substantial;itisadoorwhichcanleadasreadilyto $ ! abuseastopracticalorenlightenedjustice.Seekingto %!" determinethemeaningofsubstantialinthisconnection, & "# thecourtinEstateofTeed(1952)112Cal.App.2d638, '#$ 644,canvasseddictionaryandjudicialdefinitionsand (#% concludedthatthetermclearlyimpliesthatsuchevidence )$& mustbeofponderablelegalsignificance.Obviouslythe *%' wordcannotbedeemedsynonymouswith anyevidence. +&( Itmustbereasonableinnature,credible,andofsolid ,') value;itmustactuallybe substantialproofofthe -(* essentialswhichthelawrequiresinaparticularcase.  (Originalitalics.)  (Peoplev.Jones(1998)18Cal.4th667,682,fn.3.)   X X X<% P X`hP P P X<Areviewofrespondentsargument,andtherecordonappeal,  establishesthat,notonlywastherenot substantialevidencetosupport   thecourtsfindingwhenitcommittedappellanttoCYA,therewas x  essentiallynoevidencetosupportthosefindings. j   X X9%P P P X`hX9 A.ThereWasNoEvidenceThatASingleProgramWas \  AvailableAtCYAForAppellantsRehabilitation  U   X X<% P X`hP P P X<Inthecaseatbar,theprobationdepartmentreportstatedits G recommendationforafacilitywhichwouldtreatappellantsgangrelated 9 issues.(CT359,371.)Thecourtsonlybasisforrejectingtheprobation +{ departmentsrecommendationwasthattheprogramwasnotalocked m facility.WithoutanyevidenceofasingleprogramavailableatCYA _ whichtreatsgangrelatedissues,muchlessevidencethatappellantwould Q beeligibleforplacementorplacedinsuchaprogram,thecourt C committedappellanttoCYAbasedsolelyonitsbeliefthatappellant  5 neededtobeinalockedfacility.Whiletherewasnoevidencethat "' appellantwouldreceiveanytreatmentatCYA,thecourtmadethe $ ! unsupportedfindingthatappellantwould nodoubtreceivemore & "# treatmentthanhewouldinanordinarygrouphomesetting.(RT29.) (#%   *%' Quitesimply,thereisnoevidenceonthisrecord,andrespondent   pointstonone,ofanyprogramsatCYAwhichwouldprovideappellant  thetreatmentheneedsforrehabilitation.Therefore,respondentresorts  onlytoargumentswhichincludegeneralstatementsaboutthelawand   purposeofJuvenileCourtLaw. x  RespondentcitesPeoplev.Pride(1992)3Cal.4th195,256     2     !  ݀(RB j  6),forthepropositionthatthepurposeofjuvenilelawistobenefitthe \  publicbyprovidingjuvenileoffenderswithrehabilitativeprograms N   suchaseducation,vocationaltraining,workfurloughs,andsupervised @ parole.(Ibid.)RespondentalsoreliesonInreTyroneO.(1989)209 2 Cal.App.3d145,151(RB6)toarguethatCYAhas specialized $t institutionsandrehabilitationprogramstailoredtothedelinquents f sophisticationandneedforsecurity,andthusthereis promiseof X rehabilitativebenefit.(Ibid.)     3     %  ݀But,significantly,respondenthasnot J pointedtoasingle rehabilitationprogramtailoredtoappellantsneeds < whichisavailableatCYA,orifavailable,ifappellantwouldbeeven  considered,muchlessplacedinsuchaprogram.   B.While AccountabilityIsNotSufficientToSupport   X X9%P P P X`hX9TheCYACommitment,AppellantWouldBeEqually    AccountableInTheRecommendedTreatmentFacility     X X<% P X`hP P P X<Respondentalsocontendsthatappellantwillreceivebe x  rehabilitatedbecausebeingcommittedtoCYAwillassurethatappellant j  receives ameasureofaccountabilitywhichwouldbe rehabilitative \  punishment.(RB7,quotingInreGerardoB.(1989)207Cal.App.3d N  1252,1258.)Inobviousrecognitionofthelackofevidenceofany @ rehabilitationprogramsavailabletoappellant,respondentessentially 2 arguesthatmerelyholdingappellant accountableforhisoffenses $t throughacommitmenttoCYAwouldprovidethe probablebenefitto f appellantthatisrequiredbythestatute.Respondentfails,however,to X explainhowappellantwouldbeanyless accountableifplacedinthe J recommendedfacility.Appellantwouldbestillbeoutofhishome,his < libertywouldstillberestricted,andhewouldstillbeobligedtofollow !. thecourtsordersforparticipationinthetreatmentprograms. #   WelfareandInstitutionsCodesection202,subdivision(b), %!" specificallystates,inpertinentpart: '#$  X X X6"P P P X`X6Minorsunderthejurisdictionofthejuvenilecourtasa )$& consequenceofdelinquentconductshall,inconformity *%' withtheinterestsofpublicsafetyandprotection,receive +&( care,treatment,andguidancethatisconsistentwiththeir ,') bestinterest,thatholdsthemaccountablefortheir -(* behavior,andthatisappropriatefortheircircumstances.  Thisguidancemayincludepunishmentthatisconsistent  withtherehabilitativeobjectivesofthischapter.(Italics  added.)   X9" P X`P P P X9 X XSignificantly,theconceptof accountabilityinthelanguageof   thestatuteisdirectlylinkedto care,treatmentandguidancethatis    consistentwiththeminorsbestinterest.Thereisnothinginthe q   statutorylanguage,andrespondentdoesnotciteanycaselaw,which c  holdsthataCYAcommitmentcanbeupheldstrictlyonthebasisthatit U  wouldholdtheminor accountableforhisoffense.Inthiscase,the G recordclearlyestablishesthatthecourtdidnotconsiderappellantsbest 9 interestswhenitcommittedhimtoCYA,thecourtsonlyconcern, +{ couchedintherote probablebenefitlanguageofthestatute,wasto m keepappellantlockedawayfromthepublic.(RT29.) _ ЀAssection202,subdivision(b)establishes,whilepublicsafetyis Q aconcern,thejuvenilecourtcannot,asitdidhere,ignorethebest C interestsoftheminor.  5 Thelanguageofthecasescitedbyrespondentinsupportofits "' positioncontainnothingmorethandicta;however,evenifitwasnot $ ! merelydicta,eachofthecasescitedbyrespondentareclearly & "# distinguishablefromthecaseatbar. (#% InGerardoB.,supra,207Cal.App.3d1252,theminorwas16 *%' yearsold,involvedinathreemonthcrimespree,andheadmitted17 ,') separateautothefts.Theprobationofficerconsidered alllocalless  restrictiveprogramsandthen recommendedthat[theminor]be  committedtoYA.(Id.atp.12531254.)ThecourtinGerardoB.   consideredtheprogramsatYA,thefactthat [theminor]wasa   mentalgiantoverhiscoparticipants(id.atp.1258),andstatedit x  wouldhaveplacedtheminorinalocalprogramifonehadbeen j  available.(Id.atp.1256.)Theconceptof accountabilitythrough \  rehabilitativepunishmentwasnotthebasisofthejuvenilecourts N  decisionwhenitenteredthecommitmentorder.Thus,inGerardoB.,the @ juvenilecourthadconsideredtheactualprogramsatCYAavailableto 2 theminorandtheprogramsthatwereavailabletohiminthelocalarea. $t Thecourtdidnotdosointhecaseatbar.Further,unlikeappellant,the f youngestandleastculpableofthecoparticipantsinasingleoffense,the X minorwastheolder,mostactiveparticipant,andhisoffenseswerenota J singleevent,butinathreemonthcrimespree. < Anothercasecitedbyrespondent,InreTyroneO.,supra,209 !. Cal.App.3d145(RB4,6),alsodoesnotprovidesupportforrespondents #   argument.InTyroneO.,theminorhadarguedonappealthatCYA %!" commitmentwasreservedforonlythemostseriousdelinquentguiltyof '#$ themostseriouscrimesrequiringpenalretributionfortheprotectionof )$& society.     4     3?hich  ݀Theminorhadarecordofprogressivelyseriousoffensesand +&( numerouslessrestrictivealternativeplacementshadfailed.(Id.atp.  152.)Theminorhadmaderepeatedescapeattemptsfromthelesser  restrictivealternativeplacements.(Ibid.)Priortocommittingtheminor  toCYA,thejuvenilecourthad thoroughlyconsideredandrejected   existingalternatives.(Ibid.)Thecourtsaid: x   X X X6"P P P X`X6Whileitistruethatthecircumstancesoftheminors j  offensearealwaysconsiderationsindetermininghisproper c  dispositionthesefactorsarenotdispositive.Thecourtmust \  alsoconsidertheminorsageandpreviousdelinquent U  history,inadditiontootherrelevantandmaterialevidence. N  Also,becausecourtshaveexpressedapersistentconcern G forcommittingyoung,unsophisticatedyouthswith @ individualswhoareexperienced,sophisticated,criminally 9 orientedtypes,alternativeplacementoptionsshouldbe 2 adequatelyexplored.CYAcommitmentmadewithsome +{ punitivepurposeisproperwhereconsistentwith $t rehabilitativepurposesoftheJuvenileCourtLawandnot m retributive. f (InreTyroneO.,id.,209Cal.App.3datp.152.Citations _ omitted.) X  X X<% P X`hP P P X<NoneofthefactorsthatexistedinTyroneO.existedinthecaseatbar. J Nolesserrestrictivealternativehadeverbeentried,thecourtdidnot < thoroughlyexplorethelesserrestrictivealternatives,butrejectedthe !. availableandrecommendedprogramoutofhandsolelyonthebasisthat #   itwasnotalockedfacilitydespitethefactthattherewasnoevidence %!" thatappellantwasaflightrisk. '#$ // )$&  X9%P P P X`hX9 C.ThereIsNoEvidenceThatAppellantRequiredA Locked +&( Facility ,')  X<% P X`hP P P X< -(*  P Asfullydiscussed,anteandinappellantsopeningbrief,the  courtssolebasisforrejectingtherecommendedplacementwasitsbelief  thatappellantneededtobeinalockedfacility.Therewasnoevidence  onthisrecordtosupportthecourtsstatedconcern.Appellanthasno   historyofrunningawayfromhome,nohistoryoffailingtoobeycourt x  orders,andnothingindicatedthathewouldfailtodosoifplacedinthe j  recommendedfacility. \   P Becausetherewasnoevidencetosupportthecourtsfinding, N  respondentresortedtotheclaimthatappellantsstatusasaflightriskcan @ bebasedsolelyonthefactthatheleftthesceneoftheoffense.(RB11 2 12.)Thisargumentbordersontheabsurd.Respondentcitesnotasingle $t authority,legalorotherwise,whichindicatesthefactthatanoffenderdid f notstayatthelocationoftheoffensemakeshimmorelikelytoattempt X escapefromanunlockedrehabilitationfacility. J  P D.PlacementWiththeOlderMoreSophisticatedGang <  P MembersAtCYAIsContraryToAppellantsBestInterests  5  P AndTheInterestsofthePublicInHisRehabilitation !.   XRespondentarguesthat appellantsrecidivismisamatterforhim #   todecide.(RB12.)TheveryunderpinningsofJuvenileCourtLaware %!" societysrecognitionthata14yearoldoffenderisillequipped,without '#$ care,guidanceandrehabilitativeprograms,tomakethekindsofchoices )$& weexpectofadults.Respondenthascitednoevidencethatappellant +&( willreceiveany treatmentatCYAwithwhichhecould cooperateso -(* thatthetreatmentwouldbe effective.(RB12.)Respondentcitesno  authority,legalorsocial,whichsupportsitsconclusionthatappellant   determinationalonewillprovidehimwiththeabilityto negatethe  impactofanyexposureinCYAtothenegativeinfluence(RB12)ofthe   moresophisticated,olderdelinquents,whichhavelongbeenaconcernin x  CYAcommitments.(See,InreTeofilioA.(1989)210Cal.App.3d571, j  577;InreMariaA.(1975)52Cal.App.3d901,903;InreAlineD. \  (1975)14Cal.3d557.) N  Indeed,respondentscitationtoauthorityforthispropositionnot @ onlydonotlendsupporttorespondentsargument,butestablishthe 2 strengthofappellantsclaimthatplacinghiminCYAmakesitmore $t likelythathewillhavecontactwiththetypeofolder,moresophisticated f maleswithwhomhisassociationledhimintotroubleinthefirstcase.In X Peoplev.Lopez(1998)66Cal.App.4th615(RB12),theissuewasa J probationconditionrequiringthedefendanttorefrainfromassociating < withgangmembers.Thisprobationconditionwasupheldbecausethe !. courtrecognized, [b]ecause[a]ssociationwithgangmembersisthe #   firststeptoinvolvementingangactivity[Citation.](Id.atp.624.)It %!" mustbeconsideredascommonknowledgethatgangmembersmakeupa '#$ significantpercentageofthecurrentCYApopulation.Thesearethevery )$& peoplewithwhomappellantshouldnothave,butwillhave,association +&( withwhilecommittedtoCYA.AsrecognizedinPeoplev.Lopez,itis -(* unlikely,withoutspecificrehabilitationtreatmentthatappellants  potentialassociationwithgangmembersatCYAwillnotdecrease,but  willlikelyincrease,hisinvolvementingangactivity.  Bythisargument,respondentseekstomakeappellantsolely   responsibleforhisrehabilitation.Notonlyisthataviolationofstatutory x  lawwhichholdsallparticipantsinthejuvenilesystemaccountableforits j  results(202,subd.(d)),butitignorestheverybasisofjuvenilelaw,that \  juvenileoffendermust receivecare,treatment,andguidancethatis N  consistentwiththeirbestinterest8(202,subd.(b).Italicsadded.) @  X  ******** 2  Conclusion $t  X  Significantly,itisnotonlytheminorthatmustbeheld f accountable.Section202,subdivision(d)states,inpertinentpart: X  X X X6"P P P X`X6Juvenilecourtsandotherpublicagencieschargedwith J enforcing,interpreting,andadministeringthejuvenile C courtlawshallconsiderthesafetyandprotectionofthe < public,theimportanceofredressinginjuriestovictims,and  5 thebestinterestsoftheminorinalldeliberationspursuant !. tothischapter.Participantsinthejuvenilejusticesystem "' shallholdthemselvesaccountableforitsresults.(Italics #   added.) $ !  X X X<% P X`hP P P X<Therequirementofaccountabilityofalloftheparticipantsin & "# appellantscaseisespeciallycriticalherebecausethereisinsufficient (#% evidenceonthisrecordtoestablishanybenefittoappellantfroma *%' commitmenttoCYA,butagreatdealofevidencethatthecommitment, ,') inthelongrun,willproveharmfultoappellantandthepublicwhen  appellantdoesnotreceivetheappropriatecare,guidanceandtreatment  hebothneedsanddeserves.   XDate:August9,2004 X    x   X 3 X`hX3/s/RitaL.Swenor j  RITAL.SWENOR c  AttorneyforAppellant \   U   N   G  X   <% P X`hX< CERTIFICATEOFWORDCOUNT @    P I,RitaL.Swenor,attorneyforappellantherein,docertify 2 pursuanttothelawsoftheStateofCaliforniathatthewordcountofthis $t AppellantsReplyBriefis2404words,basedonthecountofthe f MicrosoftWord2000program. X   Dated:August9,2004 X      `    C  P     X   /s/RitaL.Swenor     h  <  P     X   RITAL.SWENOR    5  X   3 X`hX3 "'  X <% P X`hX< P