People v. M.C. (In re M.C.)

In re M.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.C., Defendant and Appellant.

H048184

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

May 7, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Monterey County Super. Ct. Nos. 20JV000090, 19JV001114)

Minor M.C. appeals from a juvenile court dispositional order committing him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF).¹ M.C. raises two claims of error. He contends that his DJF commitment is unauthorized because, even though he admitted a violation of Penal Code section 246,the crime he admitted is not one of the commitment-eligible offenses specified in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 707(b)).² In addition, M.C. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed him to DJF because there was not substantial evidence either that he would benefit from placement there or that a less restrictive alternative would be ineffective or inappropriate.

For reasons that we will explain, we affirm the juvenile court's dispositional order.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On December 19, 2019, the Monterey County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition under section 602, subdivision (a) ("December 2019 petition"), alleging that, on or about December 17, 2019, then 15-year-old M.C. committed the crimes of receiving stolen property (a motor vehicle) (Pen. Code, § 496D, subd. (a); count 1) and unlawful driving or taking a vehicle without consent of the owner (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 2). (Case No. 19JV001114.)

The next day, December 20, 2019, M.C. admitted both counts of the December 2019 petition. On January 14, 2020, the juvenile court granted M.C. a deferred entry of judgment (§ 790) for 24 months with probation supervision and various terms and conditions.

On January 28, 2020, the district attorney filed another wardship petition under section 602, subdivision (a) ("January 2020 petition"), against then 16-year-old M.C.³ The petition alleged that, on or about January 26, M.C. committed the crimes of carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a); count 1) and shooting at an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code, § 246; count 2). (Case No. 20JV000090.) As to count 1, the petition further alleged alternate penalty enhancements for active participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(3)) and membership in a class ofpersons prohibited from possessing a firearm (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(4)). The petition also alleged a criminal-street-gang sentencing enhancement. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B).)

On the same day (January 28), a probation officer with the Monterey County Probation Department (probation department) filed a notice of probation violation related to the deferred entry of judgment. The notice alleged that M.C. had violated his probation conditions by failing to obey all laws (based on his January 26 arrest), possessing and/or wearing gang-related clothing (a gray hat with a red letter "C"), and possessing and/or consuming illegal drugs (based on a presumptively positive drug test that indicated marijuana use). On January 29, the juvenile court revoked the deferred entry of judgment on the December 2019 petition.

On March 11, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, M.C. admitted counts 1 and 2 of the January 2020 petition, as well as the alternative penalty enhancement allegations for count 1. Based on the agreement, the juvenile court dismissed the gang sentencing enhancement alleged in the January 2020 petition. In addition, regarding the December 2019 petition, M.C. admitted that he had violated the conditions of the deferred entry of judgment.

On April 16, after a contested dispositional hearing regarding the December 2019 and January 2020 petitions, the juvenile court revoked and terminated deferred entry of judgment, declared M.C. a ward of the court, declared the "matter is a felony and a [section] 707(b) offense," and committed M.C. to DJF. The juvenile court set M.C.'s maximum term of confinement for all admitted counts and allegations at six years and four months, with 86 days of credit for time served. M.C. filed a timely notice of appeal from the dispositional hearing order committing him to DJF.

B. Factual Background⁴

On the evening of December 17, 2019, Monterey police officers saw M.C.—who was then 15 years old—driving a stolen car. The officers stopped M.C. and took him into custody.

On the afternoon of January 26, City of Seaside police officers were dispatched based on reports of "shots fired into a residence" on Trinity Avenue and shots fired near the intersection of Trinity Avenue and Prospect Street. The police saw four people running away from the area, and witnesses reported four to seven people fleeing the scene, some of them wearing red and white hoodies. "The victim and the reporting party were sitting in the living room [of their residence] watching television with their small children when they heard yelling and then a loud 'pop' as the window near the front door shattered." The bullet struck a bookcase inside the house and "was then located in an exterior wall of the residence." Additionally, on January 28, "Victim #2 found a spent bullet at the residence in relation to the shooting that occurred on January 26, 2020." "Victim #2 advised that she found the spent jacket mixed in with the stack of papers that were located on the shoe rack inside the front door on the right side." A police officer took the item and booked it into evidence.

A witness to the incident saw a group of males prior to the shooting. They were wearing red clothing and walking in one direction; and then a male walked toward them from the opposite direction. According to the probation department's detention report, "One subject yelled 'What's up Nigga?' While one subject yelled back, 'I'm Norteño Nigga.' Witnesses heard arguing and what appeared to be a conversation about a previous shooting into a residence." In addition, "[a] witness said two males hadhandguns and approximately four shots were fired. . . . The witness further stated that shots were fired diagonally toward the direction of [the residence]."

About four hours later, police detained M.C. on a street near his friend's house. The police found a firearm loaded with live and expended rounds in the front pocket of M.C.'s sweatshirt. M.C. was wearing clothing that identified him as a Norteño gang member (specifically, a gray hat with a red letter "C").

M.C. admitted that he was present during the shooting, but he denied that he had fired any shots. M.C. acknowledged being a Norteño gang member associated with the North Side Seaside subset. He said the shooting happened because of a previous argument with the victim. M.C. stated that he had gone with his accomplices to the victim's residence after "getting clearance from older Norteño gang members." M.C. said that one victim (who was a rival gang member and identified in the report as "victim #1") "came out at [sic] took the first shot." Two of M.C.'s accomplices returned fire; they "shot several rounds together."

II. DISCUSSION

A. Eligibility for DJF Commitment

M.C. contends his DJF commitment is unauthorized under section 731, subdivision (a)(4), because his violation of Penal Code section 246 is not equivalent to the predicate firearm-discharge offense specified in section 707, subdivision (b)(15) (hereafter section 707(b)(15)). More specifically, M.C. maintains that section 707(b)(15), which states an offense of " '[d]ischarge of a firearm into an inhabited or occupied building' " (italics added), is narrower and more aggravated than Penal Code section 246, which prohibits shooting at an inhabited dwelling. M.C. further claims that the "aggravating factor" in section 707(b)(15) "was not charged, admitted, nor found to be true" and thus his commitment is unauthorized. He maintains that the error here is "per se reversable" or otherwise prejudicial under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 and People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818.

The Attorney General responds that M.C.'s DJF commitment is authorized because he admitted a violation of Penal Code section 246 grounded on a shooting into an occupied dwelling and M.C.'s crime is an offense specified in section 707(b).

1. Additional Background

Before M.C. admitted the charges alleged in counts 1 and 2 of the January 2020 petition, the parties and juvenile court discussed the maximum term M.C. faced (i.e., nine years) based on the charges in the two pending petitions. In addition, while admonishing M.C. regarding the consequences of his impending admissions, the court said "I believe that this also would be a [section] 707[(b)] offense." In response to the court's statement, M.C.'s defense counsel and the prosecutor confirmed the court's understanding as to count 2 of the January 2020 petition. The court then advised M.C., "Count 2, shooting into an occupied dwelling is a Welfare and Institutions Code [section] 707(b) offense. And what that means is that you could -- you are eligible for a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice if that would provide the programs that would be most helpful to you. [¶] Do you understand?" (Italics added.) M.C. responded, "Yes, your Honor." M.C. thereafter confirmed that he was "freely and voluntarily waiving [his] rights," and M.C.'s counsel joined in the waiver and concurred in M.C.'s plea.

The juvenile court then questioned M.C. about the truth of the counts in the January 2020 petition. The court said, ...