In re J.T. CA2/8

Opinion

Filed 8/25/26 In re J.T. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re J.T., a Person Coming B344352 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County THE PEOPLE Super. Ct. No. SJ0394B Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.T., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders and judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Susan Ser, Judge. Affirmed. Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, and Steven D. Matthews and Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. We affirm the juvenile court’s order setting the baseline term to seven years in committing appellant J.T. to a secure youth treatment facility (“Facility”) under section 875 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Rule 5.806 of the Rules of Court. Since 2021, Facilities have been California’s most restrictive placement for its most severe juvenile offenders. (In re Tony R. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 395, 406.) Unspecified statutory citations refer to the Welfare and Institutions Code and rule references are to the Rules of Court. J.T., born March 2008, is a documented 18th Street gang member. His delinquency history began at the age of 12 with an arrest for terrorist threats, and continued with a sustained section 602 petition for assault with a deadly weapon when he was 13. Also at 13, another sustained section 602 petition for grand theft resulted in J.T.’s placement at a short-term residential program. At 14, yet another sustained section 602 petition for attempted murder led to the juvenile court ordering J.T. to a short-term camp community placement. In a March 2024 section 602 petition, the prosecutor alleged four felony counts against J.T.: one, the October 2023 murder of Jose Luis C.; two, the October 2023 attempted murder of Gonzalo T.; three, the November 2023 attempted murder of Francisco H.; and four, the November 2023 attempted murder of Andrew T. J.T. admitted all four allegations in December 2024. The juvenile court accepted his plea, sustained the section 602 petition, and set the case for a contested disposition hearing the following month. The probation department recommended a Facility commitment for J.T., noting his repeated violent behavior against 2 other detained youth and probation staff at juvenile hall and his “highly entrenched gang lifestyle.” It also reported that despite J.T.’s “relatively young age, he is too sophisticated and dangerous to be housed in juvenile halls, probation camps, or even closed suitable placements” and he “has not shown any willingness to change.” No one disputed J.T.’s eligibility for a Facility placement. He was 15 when he committed his most recent offense of attempted murder, which section 707(b) lists as a qualifying offense. (See § 875, subd. (a).) The dispute concerned which of J.T.’s offenses the juvenile court should use to select the baseline term for his Facility placement. Under section 875, the juvenile court sets a “baseline term of confinement” that “shall represent the time in custody necessary to meet the developmental and treatment needs of the ward and to prepare the ward for discharge to a period of probation supervision in the community.” (§ 875, subd. (b)(1).) The court must set the baseline term of confinement using the ward’s “most recent serious” adjudicated offense. (Ibid.) At the disposition hearing, J.T.’s lawyer urged the juvenile court to use attempted murder, not murder, to set his baseline term, because he committed attempted murder more recently than he committed murder. Counsel’s brief argued “the baseline term cannot appropriately be based on the murder charge, as doing so would disregard the chronological sequence of events and the integral principle that the most serious recent offense must guide the determination of the baseline term.” The juvenile court rejected J.T.’s argument. It agreed with the prosecutor that attempted murder was the “controlling offense for [J.T.’s Facility] eligibility, but there is nothing that 3 prevents the court from using a different offense, even if it is prior in time, which is [murder] and the more serious offense for purposes of setting a baseline term.” The juvenile court declared J.T. a ward under section 602, ordered a Facility placement for him, and used his murder adjudication to set the baseline term at seven years. On appeal, J.T. repeats the same argument that the court should have used attempted murder as the “most recent serious” offense to set his baseline term. Again, this argument fails. J.T.’s reliance on In re D.B. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 941 (D.B.) is unavailing, as D.B. pertains to the juvenile justice statutory scheme that section 875 replaced. (See In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 906–908.) Nor does Rule 5.806 support J.T.’s interpretation of “most recent serious” adjudicated offense in section 875, subdivision (b)(1). A court only looks to Rule 5.806 once it has already found a ward eligible for Facility placement and uses the rule’s offense- based classification matrix to select a baseline term. (See In re Jose R. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 839, 846 n.4.) As the prosecutor correctly observes, Rule 5.806 does not restrict the juvenile court’s discretion to consider an earlier adjudicated offense that is more serious than the most recent one. It does not redefine or narrow the statutory phrase “most serious recent” offense, nor does it eliminate the qualitative assessment of an offense’s seriousness as section 875, subdivision (b)(1) demands. The juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in setting J.T.’s baseline term at seven years.

4 DISPOSITION We affirm the orders and judgment.

WILEY, ACTING P. J.

We concur:

VIRAMONTES, J.

SCHERB, J.