## Facts

- Gregory S., age 13, was the subject of multiple juvenile petitions, including prior misdemeanor adjudications for battery and resisting arrest.
- New petitions alleged serious offenses, including kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, auto theft, and multiple burglaries.
- In the incident supporting the kidnapping-for-robbery finding, Gregory and older youths forced a 15-year-old victim into a car, transported him, and during the episode robbed and assaulted him.
- After a jurisdictional hearing, the court found true kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and robbery, and treated the latter two as merging into the kidnapping offense.
- Gregory later admitted robbery and burglary in a separate petition after being advised of his Boykin-Tahl rights, in exchange for dismissal of remaining charges and petitions.
- At disposition, the court declared Gregory a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 and committed him to the California Youth Authority (CYA).
- A probation report recommended a group home placement, citing Gregory’s youth and small size, potential benefit from structured supervision, and risk of harm in CYA; it assessed absconding risk from a group home as low.
- The prosecution urged CYA due to offense seriousness and public safety concerns, arguing a group home might not adequately contain him.
- The juvenile court emphasized public safety and potential educational benefits at CYA in choosing CYA over the recommended group home.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Gregory committed kidnapping for the purpose of robbery (Penal Code § 209), rather than movement incidental only to an assault.
2. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing Gregory to CYA instead of a less restrictive placement, given the “last resort” principle for CYA commitments.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed.
- It held the evidence was sufficient to support kidnapping for the purpose of robbery because the victim was forcibly transported in a car and the movement facilitated the robbery and increased risk of harm.
- It upheld the CYA commitment, concluding the juvenile court considered less restrictive alternatives and reasonably selected CYA based on public safety, escalation of conduct, and available CYA programming.

## Legal Principles

- In juvenile delinquency cases, appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency follows the criminal standard: the reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and presumes facts the trier of fact could reasonably deduce.
- Kidnapping for the purpose of robbery may be found where the victim is moved in a manner that is more than trivial or incidental and the movement facilitates the robbery or increases the risk of harm.
- Under the Juvenile Court Law, dispositions should generally proceed through progressively more restrictive orders, with CYA reserved as a last resort for the most serious delinquency; however, “last resort” does not bar CYA when a lesser option exists.
- A CYA commitment is proper when the juvenile court considers available alternatives and articulates reasons grounded in rehabilitative needs and public safety; appellate courts defer absent arbitrariness or capriciousness.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the kidnapping-for-robbery finding under substantial-evidence review and affirmed the CYA commitment because the juvenile court considered and rejected a group home option and reasonably determined secure confinement was necessary for public safety given the seriousness and escalation of Gregory’s conduct.


In re Gregory S., 85 Cal. App. 3d 206, 149 Cal. Rptr. 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)