DISCUSSION

Additional Background Before announcing its judgment, the court reviewed Minor’s history as a section 300 dependent. The court also noted Minor’s prior delinquency cases related to vehicle theft, receiving stolen property, and evading and assaulting a peace officer. The

3 court commented that the probation officer “indicated that an STRTP would be a good placement, but it depends on the willingness of the individual to participate.” The court pointed out that Minor has “a history of not wanting to participate” in services. The court then moved on to discuss comments made by Minor, indicating he was “going to do better” and “change the people [he] h[u]ng out with.” The court, however, observed that “some of these things that [Minor] did were all by [him]self,” and that during the last carjacking attempt, “it appears, that [Minor] had an adult with [him].” The court selected JDF as the appropriate placement in the interests of both Minor and the public, given that Minor “went from being moderate risk” to being “high risk for prior and current offenses,” and in light of the likelihood that Minor would leave an unlocked facility like a STRTP. The court emphasized that JDF placement was “not intended as a punishment” but rather “to help [Minor] so that [he] will do better.” Standard of Review The appellate court reviews a “juvenile court’s commitment decision for abuse of discretion, indulging all reasonable inferences to support its decision.” (In re Antoine D. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1320.) “[T]here must be evidence in the record demonstrating both a probable benefit” to a minor by JDF commitment and “the inappropriateness or ineffectiveness of less restrictive alternatives.” (In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396.)

4 We have reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. Given the seriousness of Minor’s offenses, his history of refusing services, his escalating criminal behavior, and the risks to himself and the public, the record fully supports the juvenile court’s determination that placement in JDF is appropriate to serve the goals of rehabilitation and community safety. There was no abuse of discretion. Having conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we find no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BROWN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, J.

GOLDMAN, J.

In re T.F. (A170288)

5