The Fourth Appellate District affirmed an order. The court held that there was substantial evidence that a minor’s commitment to the Youth Authority would probably benefit him and that a less restrictive alternative would be ineffective and would not adequately promote public safety.
Carl N. was a ward of the juvenile court. In the course of five years Carl had been subject to five �602 petitions and had admitted violating probation on eight occasions, involving going AWOL, testing positive for marijuana and methamphetamine, using graffiti, and associating with gang members.
