In re A.L. CA3

Filed 11/12/26 In re A.L. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) In re A.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C104191 Law. (Super. Ct. No. 25JU-000067) THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.L., Defendant and Appellant. A.L. (the minor) and his friend, J.G., planned a Columbine-style attack at their middle school, hoping to kill over 100 people. They wrote manifestos expressing their rage at society and identifying particular persons they hated; they discussed specific routes they would take around the school during the attack; they accessed multiple firearms and ammunition; and they built and successfully detonated pipe bombs before J.G. changed his mind and called off the planned attack. The juvenile court determined the minor committed attempted murder, possessed materials with the intent to make a destructive device, and possessed a destructive device.1 The court declared the minor a 1 Similar criminal violations were alleged against J.G. in a separate juvenile delinquency proceeding. 1 ward and committed him to the Tehama County Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF), setting his maximum and baseline terms of confinement at four years. On appeal, the minor contends insufficient evidence supports the attempted murder count because he engaged in mere planning and preparation, did not take a direct but ineffectual step toward the killing, and abandoned the plan. He also argues that if the attempted murder count is reversed, the juvenile court lacked authority to commit him to SYTF, and, in any event, abused its discretion in doing so by overly emphasizing the severity of his offenses without properly accounting for numerous mitigating factors that favored a less restrictive disposition. While the minor’s conduct demonstrated a clear intent to kill, after considering established case law, we agree the evidence was insufficient to show he took a direct but ineffectual step toward the killing. Because substantial evidence does not establish the overt act element of attempted murder, we must reverse the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and order on the attempted murder count. As a result, we shall vacate the juvenile court’s disposition order committing the minor to SYTF and remand the matter for further disposition proceedings. BACKGROUND In May 2025, an amended juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) alleged the 15-year-old minor committed six counts of premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,2 §§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count 1, 5-9), possessed ingredients to make a destructive device (§ 18720; count 2), possessed a destructive device, a pipe bomb (§ 18710; count 3), and conspired to commit attempted murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); count 4). 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2  Evidence at a multi-day contested jurisdictional hearing showed the following. In 2025, the minor was a student at a charter school that was located on the campus of a local middle school. He was friends with J.G., another student at the school. They often spent time together discussing how J.G. was suicidal and the minor hated his family and wanted to kill people. They also regularly communicated online through Discord.com. Beginning in February 2025, the minor and J.G. communicated extensively on Discord,3 discussing ways to acquire guns illegally, where to obtain bomb making materials, how to break into a gun safe, and the possibility of stealing guns and ammunition. The minor asked J.G. whether they were “doin a shootin?” and both referenced an “army of two.” Later, J.G. said he did not want to wait too long and said he would prefer if they “could just do [their school].” They discussed whether they would kill themselves or run before law enforcement showed up and about when they could build a bomb. J.G. sent an aerial photo of their school campus with handwritten notations showing the anticipated routes he and the minor would take separately and together, and where they would plant bombs during a campus attack. They strategized about directing law enforcement to a different school as a distraction while they attacked their middle school, leading to a delayed law enforcement response. Their messages discussed the Columbine shooting, apparent bomb tutorials on a Web site belonging to one of the Columbine shooters, and a plan to wear shirts with the phrases “Natural Selection” and “Wrath” on them like those worn by the Columbine shooters. They contemplated making a “co2 can bomb,” and discussed removing powder from ammunition shells for the bombs. They planned on getting bullets from a third individual who allegedly wanted to join in “[a]s a sniper.” J.G. suggested the minor read 3 We quote parts of these online messages verbatim, including grammatical errors and misspellings. 3 The Anarchist Cookbook (a book that shows how to make bombs, drugs, weapons, and rudimentary telecommunication devices), and the minor said he “used to have this book.” By March 6, 2025, the minor had acquired a “burner go pro” to film their activities. The minor told J.G. he intended to steal a box of .22-caliber ammunition from his father, which was kept unsecured in his father’s drawer, and later said he found potential shotgun shells in the center console of his father’s car. J.G. suggested they steal a .22-caliber rifle because the “more guns the better.” Although the minor said a .22- caliber rifle was “not that good,” he agreed that it could still kill people, especially a “close range headshot.” They talked about obtaining a suppressor and shooting the rifle “deep out in the woods for practice.” The minor and J.G. discussed school shooting videos and mocked people trying to escape during such events. They shared photos of “Subsonic rounds” and “Testing pipe,” and talked about where to get cap ends to construct a pipe bomb. The minor sent J.G. a written manifesto describing perceived societal grievances, discussing death and killing people, and identifying several individuals the minor hated, including his parents and a sibling, and at least one person he “want[ed] to kill separately.” In the manifesto, the minor thanked J.G. for “doing this with me” because the minor found “it comforting people like me are out there,” and said, “gl [presumably good luck] to our plans.” The minor later revised the manifesto, adding, among other things, that “if there’s a hell [J.G.] would burn with [him].” J.G. responded that he was “inspired” to “hurry tf up on my manifesto.” J.G.’s manifesto talked about taking revenge on the kids at his school because no one was held accountable when he was molested there. He expressed various societal disappointments and described students or individuals he hated. J.G. said he was happy to plan the school shooting with the minor and wished they could carry it out sooner but that “shit like this takes time.” According to J.G.’s manifesto, he was “taking [their middle school] off the map.” 4  On March 15, 2025, the minor and J.G. planned to go to a store to purchase bomb- making supplies. A week later, on March 23, the minor messaged J.G. that he “finished making the pipe bomb.” On March 26, the minor informed J.G. that he stole “a whole box of 308 [ammunition]” with “like 30-40 rounds” from his father, and they made plans to remove the gunpowder from the ammunition. The next day, the minor sent J.G. photos of a pipe bomb with a fuse and a live cartridge with a bullet, and later said he had obtained “another fuse.” The Discord messages also included photos of what appeared to be an abandoned industrial site with a large metal silo. The minor and J.G. continued to discuss ways to purchase or obtain more caps, fuses, bullets, and gunpowder. On April 4, 4025, the minor said he had $20 so they could “get pipe caps.” Two days later, on April 6, the boys made plans to “fill the pipes todays” “under da bridge,” with J.G. offering to bring the “gun powduh.” J.G. sent the minor a photo of a string that he thought might work for a bomb fuse. When J.G. said he might be able to get “blackpowder” from a gun his grandmother owned, the minor responded that it was “weaker” than gunpowder because “it burns slower.” On April 9, 2025, J.G. sent the minor a message purporting to back out of their school shooting plan. Noting that the minor earlier had expressed “sum things which kinda sounded like you weren’t 100% sure about our plans,” J.G. said it was “okay” because he was now talking to a girl he hoped to start dating soon. Now that J.G. “actually [had] somewhat of a future and am not like insanely depressed guy (not to mention the facts thats none of the people [I] wanteds to kill are evens really at [the middle school] anymore) I’m willing to not do the plan anymore if you also agrees.” J.G.’s message continued: “If you still wanna do [] highschool or friggin kills ur parents yo that’s awesome with me as long as its doesn’t really involves me :D.” J.G. then told the minor, “If you still really wants to do [their middle school] withs me, we can dooz it still if stuff doesn’t works out with [A.D.]. And if you REALLY REALLYS wanna do it togethers still, we can and im somewhat willings to throw 5 everythings away still teehee!! I was thinkings maybe we could tries to alls live happily ever afters and you escape your parents by maybes getting emancipated, and if that doesn’t work we just goes through with the plan and freaking rape everyone with pipebooms!!>:)” J.G. concluded the message by saying if the minor wanted to give “that one pipebomb to [S.] and get the cigs we can dooz that.” Expressing disbelief, the minor responded: “What,” “Wait,” “Naur,” and “Rly[?]” J.G. said he would do “whautevr ur doins,” and the minor responded, “Ig [I guess] is we aint gunna do it [I] can not.” The boys agreed they would call the plan off for now, although they agreed they could “alwahys probably dooz it latuh.” On April 12, 2025, J.G. sent the minor a message stating, “plan 100% starting again in a few months we’re still gonna make stuff.” The minor responded, “yuh, ik [I know].” He and the minor agreed that they were “not giving [S.] our bomb.” They continued to share pictures and discuss videos of the Columbine shooters. They also shared a video on how to make “redneck C45” by soaking a bag of flour in diesel fuel and inserting a firecracker into the bag. The plot came to light on May 8, 2025, when J.G. sent a message on Discord to an online friend, A.S., confessing that he and the minor had planned to commit a school shooting and bombing but had changed their minds. J.G. sent A.S. videos showing the minor lighting and throwing a pipe bomb. J.G. said the bomb was “[five times] as loud in person than on video,” and he described the bombs as “more deadly than a military grade grenade.” J.G. also sent A.S. a photograph showing him posing with one of the pipe bombs, and another photograph with him wearing a “Wrath” shirt and the minor wearing a “Natural Selection” shirt like the Columbine shooters. J.G. told A.S. about the weapons they planned to use during the attack, including two pump action shotguns that J.G. would use, two “mk rugers” that they each would use “for finishing people,” a 1308 lever action that the minor would use, and two propane 6 bombs that they intended to blow up in the gym, “killing roughly 100” people. He said they “were making over 32 pipebombs to throw around the place and to clear buildings” to “kill around 40” people. J.G. told A.S. he and the minor were “very close to doing” the school shooting, which they had planned to carry out on May 9, 2025, but that a month prior, he told the minor he no longer wanted to participate. J.G. said that he “wanted a way out of the shooting, but knew [the minor] would kill him or hurt others if he simply dropped out.” He claimed that the reason he “was nice and was like WE COULD DO IT LATER STILL!! Was because I was trying to make it seem less bad to make [the minor] not get upset.” J.G. told A.S. that “[l]uckily” the minor “somewhat [understood]” and “the attack is officially called off.” J.G. asked A.S. not to tell anyone about the plan and said he only wanted to get it off his chest. He assured A.S. that he and the minor agreed not to carry out the attack, that the minor no longer had access to any of the deadly materials because J.G. had gotten rid of everything he needed to carry out the school shooting and bombing, and that the minor “[could not] do it without [him] and wouldn’t.” He claimed the minor was “going to get a job and therapy,” and, now that J.G. had a girlfriend, “[e]veryone [was] going to be okay. It was really tough, but now it’s over, which is why I thought it was safe to tell you.” Despite J.G.’s assurances, A.S. worried that the minor and J.G. might still carry out their plan. He contacted Tehama County law enforcement to report a possible school shooting and provided officers with his online messages with J.G. Based on the material A.S. provided, officers obtained a search warrant for the minor’s and J.G.’s homes. After the minor was arrested, he told officers that there were no bombs present at his home, that they had only made two bombs and detonated both, and that they had pulled apart bullets to make the pipe bombs. 7  While searching the minor’s home, officers located two shirts with the words “Natural Selection” and two laptops in the minor’s bedroom. One laptop contained numerous searches conducted on the Columbine shooters, a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook, and several Discord messages between the minor and J.G. sent between January and April 2025. The boys’ respective manifestos were also recovered from the laptop as was a note entitled “Progress,” which stated that they had “started stealing bullets and extracting gunpowder to make pipebombs,” they had tested “a couple of them (loud af),” and that the pipe bombs had “work[ed] perfectly.” Officers also located one firearm in the living room and multiple firearms in the minor’s parents’ bedroom, stored unsecured under the bed or in the corner of the room, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. These firearms included two 12-gauge pump action shotguns, a bolt action .22-caliber long rifle, a semiautomatic .22-caliber rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun lever action 3030, a Mark II Ruger .22-caliber pistol, and a .357- caliber Magnum revolver. They did not find any live cartridges or ammunition, fuses, or pipes in the minor’s bedroom. A search of J.G.’s house uncovered a shirt with the word “Wrath,” shell casings or cartridges that had been ripped open and the gunpowder removed, a cell phone, and two laptops. Two videos were extracted from the cell phone, one of which showed the minor throwing what appeared to be a pipe bomb that exploded. The video, however, did not show when or where the video was filmed. Evidence of Discord messages between A.D. (J.G.’s girlfriend), J.G., and the minor, were also admitted as evidence. In one message, the minor and J.G. told A.D. they had tested a pipe bomb. J.G. sent A.D photographs showing an industrial location where a possible pipe bomb or explosive device was hidden, and she later provided the photographs to law enforcement. Detective Rob Epperson recognized the abandoned industrial site in the photographs. While searching the site, the detective found an object that was later 8 determined to be a pipe bomb containing flammable material inside, although the device did not have a fuse. The minor did not testify or present any evidence. Following posthearing briefing, the juvenile court determined “conspiracy to commit attempted murder” was not a valid crime, denied the People’s request to amend the petition to allege conspiracy to commit murder, and dismissed the conspiracy allegation (count 4). The court found the minor took a direct step toward the plan to commit murder at the middle school when he and J.G. “made the bombs, and then actually went out and tested them to make sure that they would detonate.” The court therefore sustained the count 1 attempted murder allegation but dismissed the remaining attempted murder allegations (counts 5 through 9 related to his parents and three other individuals) based on vagueness and a lack of evidence regarding taking a direct step towards those murders. The court sustained both possession offenses (counts 2 and 3). A dispositional report found the minor was eligible for an SYTF commitment under Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, and recommended the juvenile court adjudge the minor a ward of the court and commit him to SYTF for a baseline term of four years. During his predisposition interview with probation, the minor admitted planning the school shooting with J.G. but said it was joke that went too far and that he “did not want to continue with it.” While J.G. planned on hurting “hundreds of people,” the minor claimed he “did not want to hurt anybody at all.” The minor admitted that he “was the one who mostly made the bombs,” which he learned how to do from reading The Anarchist’s Cookbook. At the disposition hearing on July 8, 2025, the juvenile court considered probation’s recommendation as well as several reference letters supporting the minor. The minor’s counsel objected to an SYTF commitment, citing the minor’s lack of prior criminal history, his family and community support, his good grades as a student, his exceptional behavior while in juvenile hall, and his assessed low risk of reoffending. 9 Counsel requested wardship with standard terms and aggression replacement training, or, alternatively, a three-year base term. The People agreed with probation’s recommendation to commit the minor to SYTF but requested a longer five-year baseline term given the minor’s failure to take accountability for the seriousness of the offenses. The juvenile court declared the minor a ward of the court, committed him to SYTF, and set his maximum and baseline terms of confinement at four years. The minor timely appealed. DISCUSSION I. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Attempted Murder The minor contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that he committed attempted murder. We agree. When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge in a juvenile proceeding, we consider the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the juvenile committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. (In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275 [the same standard of proof in an adult criminal trial applies in juvenile proceedings involving criminal acts, and the same substantial evidence standard of review applies on appeal]; In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 368.) We presume the existence of every fact the juvenile court as the fact finder could reasonably deduce from the evidence, and we make all reasonable inferences in support of the juvenile court’s findings and orders. (In re Jose R., at p. 275.) “Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing.” (People v. Superior Court (Decker) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1, 7 (Decker); see § 21a [“An attempt to commit a crime consists of two elements: a specific intent to commit the crime, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission”].) “ ‘The overt act element of attempt 10 requires conduct that goes beyond “mere preparation” and “show[s] that [defendant] is putting his or her plan into action.” ’ ” (People v. Garton (2018) 4 Cal.5th 485, 510 (Garton).) However, the act need not be the last proximate or ultimate step toward commission of the crime or crimes, nor need it satisfy any element of the crime. (Decker, at p. 8.) Here, the uncontradicted evidence that the minor harbored the specific intent to kill students at the middle school is overwhelming, and the minor does not contend otherwise. Nor could he. For several months, the minor and J.G. discussed their desire to kill their fellow classmates; they wrote manifestos detailing their murderous plans; they gathered weapons and ammunition to use in the attack; they built and tested pipe bombs; they idolized and mimicked the Columbine killers; they obtained and analyzed an aerial photograph of the school grounds to map their intended routes of destruction; and they devised a plan to divert law enforcement away from the school to allow them to inflict maximal carnage on the day of the planned attack. This evidence amply supports a finding that the minor intended to kill. The dispute in this case lies in whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that building and detonating a pipe bomb at an unspecified location (but, as the People concede, not at or near the school) sometime before the date selected for the attack constitutes a direct but ineffectual step toward accomplishing the intended killings. Or rather, as the minor argues, whether such acts constitute mere preparation and planning. “ ‘[B]etween preparation for the attempt and the attempt itself, there is a wide difference. The preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offense; the attempt is the direct movement toward the commission after the preparations are made.’ ” (Decker, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 8, citing People v. Murray (1859) 14 Cal. 159, 159.) While “a definitive test” demarcating the line between mere preparation and a direct step “has proved elusive, we have long 11 recognized that ‘[w]henever the design of a person to commit crime is clearly shown, slight acts in furtherance of the design will constitute an attempt.’ ” (Decker, at p. 8.) “ ‘Indeed, where (as here) the crime involves concerted action—and hence a greater likelihood that the criminal objective will be accomplished [citation]—there is a greater urgency for intervention by the state at an earlier stage in the course of that conduct. [Citation].’ ” (Garton, supra, 4 Cal.5th at pp. 510-511.) Several factors are relevant when determining whether an individual has committed the requisite overt act, rather than mere preparation and planning, for attempted murder. These include: a defendant’s proximity to the planned crime scene and the intended victim (Garton, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 511); whether, although geographically distant from the intended victim, a defendant unequivocally directs someone else to murder the victim (Decker, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 9); or whether there is a temporal separation to such a degree between the conduct and the anticipated killing that the plot to kill “was not ‘in such progress that it [would] be consummated unless interrupted by circumstances independent of the will of the attempter.’ ” (Garton, at p. 514.) While it is true that the line between mere preparation and conduct satisfying the act element is a question of degree and depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case (People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1192 (Hajek and Vo), overruled on another ground in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216), we find several Supreme Court decisions instructive here. In Garton, for example, our Supreme Court determined that a defendant’s actions within California did not satisfy the overt act element of attempted murder under the “slight acts” rule, which was necessary to support territorial jurisdiction over a charge of conspiracy to murder a man in Oregon. (Garton, supra, 4 Cal.5th at pp. 490-492, 507- 508, 511-515.) The defendant there extensively planned the murder with two accomplices for over a year in California; they watched violent movies together as 12 “ ‘training,’ ” they shopped for equipment to use in the murder, and they test-fired a gun they anticipated using to kill the intended victim. (Id. at p. 508.) The night before the planned murder, the defendant and his accomplices loaded his car with weapons and equipment, and they drove from California to Oregon to commit the murder the next day. (Id. at pp. 508-509.) In finding this evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite overt act under the slight acts rule, the court emphasized that the defendant’s conduct in California did not occur in close proximity to the victim or to the anticipated site of the murder in the Portland area, there was a significant temporal separation between his acts in California and the date of the anticipated murder in Oregon, and he did not unequivocally direct a third party who was physically closer to the intended victim to carry out the murder. (Id. at pp. 511-514.) In contrast to Garton, our Supreme Court found over a century ago in People v. Stites (1888) 75 Cal. 570 (Stites) that there was sufficient evidence of an attempt to place a destructive device on a railway where the defendant and an accomplice planned to bomb the railroad track of a company they disliked. (Id. at pp. 572-573.) They selected a specific spot on the tracks to attack the following morning and that night the defendant constructed a powerful homemade bomb from dynamite cartridges the accomplice supplied. (Ibid.) At the allotted time, the defendant left his home the next morning with the bomb in his possession and set out towards the chosen railway spot to meet up with the accomplice to carry out the attack as planned. The defendant, however, unexpectedly encountered police as he walked towards the track and he discarded the bomb while fleeing from authorities. (Id. at pp. 573-574.) Notably, the court found that the defendant’s construction of the bomb at his home the night before the planned attack “was but an act of preparation, and when perfected did not render him” guilty of attempt. (Stites, supra, 75 Cal. at pp. 575-576, italics added.) It was only when the defendant left his home and approached the track early the next morning with the bomb in his possession pursuant to the pre-arranged plan that his 13 conduct “amounted to an overt act done by him for the purpose of effecting the crime intended, and was in law and fact a criminal attempt.” (Id. at p. 576; see also People v. Lanzit (1925) 70 Cal.App. 498, 506-507 [sufficient evidence showed a series of overt acts where the defendant induced a third party to prepare a dynamite bomb intended to blow up the defendant’s wife and her family, he instructed the third party where to place the bomb in the wife’s toilet after they entered his wife’s bedroom, he ordered him to set the bomb to go off at a particular time, and he struck several matches so the person could see to replace the detonator to make the bomb go off at the allotted time].) In this case, the evidence shows that like the defendant in Garton, the minor and J.G. extensively planned their attack on the middle school for several months, they watched videos about prior school shootings, and they collected weapons, equipment, and supplies to carry out their deadly plan. But, as in Garton, there is no evidence that the minor or J.G. ever came within close proximity to the school to carry out the attack. (Garton, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 512; see also Hajek and Vo, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 1193- 1194 [the defendants’ conduct went beyond mere preparation under the slight acts rule where one defendant told a witness that he planned to kill a woman and her family, and later both defendants drove a stolen van to a place near the family’s home, gained access to the home while wearing gloves and carrying a pellet gun, and held the members of the family hostage]; People v. Morales (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 917, 926-927 [sufficient evidence supported attempted murder conviction under slight acts rule where the defendant twice threatened to get the victim and went home, loaded his gun, drove to the victim’s neighborhood, and finally hid in a position that would give him a clear shot of the victim if the victim left by the front door of his home].) Instead, the record shows that their activities were geographically distant from the target school and the intended victims. As the People concede, the minor “is correct that there is no evidence that [he] and J.G. actually went to [the middle school] on a particular day armed and ready to carry out the attack.” According to J.G.’s messages to A.S., he 14 and the minor used “pellet rifles” and went “into the woods” to shoot. Although the minor did construct a homemade bomb like the defendant in Stites, unlike that case, no evidence shows the minor took a finished bomb and approached the school intending to detonate it but for unanticipated police intervention. J.G. described exploding a test bomb somewhere in the woods at least “[two] miles” from a residence, and the video he sent A.S. of the minor throwing what appeared to be a pipe bomb that exploded did not show when or where the video was filmed. There was also no evidence that the abandoned industrial site at which they hid a pipe bomb without a fuse was anywhere near the school. Moreover, this is not a case where the minor hired someone to carry out the attack, doing everything that effectively had to be done to ensure that the intended victims at the school were killed. (Cf. Decker, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 9 [finding sufficient evidence of an overt act where the defendant paid an undercover police detective (who he believed was a professional hitman) an agreed-upon downpayment to murder his sister; he provided the detective with all the information about his sister necessary to commit the crime, and he understood that by giving the detective the money, the crime would be “ ‘done’ ” when the detective left their meeting].) Rather, the minor and J.G. planned to carry out the attack themselves. There was also a significant temporal separation between when the minor built and tested the pipe bomb, apparently sometime before April 9, 2025, when J.G. called off the attack, and the date originally planned for the attack, May 9, 2025. (Cf. Garton, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 513 [temporal gap of one day from when the defendant embarked from California and his arrival at the location in Oregon where he planned to kill the victim showed the plot to kill the victim was not in such progress at the time he left California that it would be consummated unless interrupted by circumstances independent of the defendant’s will].) J.G.’s messages to A.S. in May 2025 described how he and the minor had originally picked May 9 to carry out their plan and how he called it off a month 15 earlier. The messages included a video showing the minor throwing what appeared to be a pipe bomb that exploded, which they had made before the plan was canceled, and a picture of J.G. posing with a pipe bomb. Thus, at a minimum, there was at least a month between building and detonating the test bomb and the date planned for the attack—a significant temporal gap that shows the plan had not progressed towards near consummation. Viewing the minor’s conduct in light of his clear intent to kill as expressed in his manifesto and his messages to J.G., we conclude that, even applying the slight acts rule, insufficient evidence shows he committed attempted murder. That is, we find that constructing and testing the pipe bomb under the circumstances presented here (away from the school and the intended victims at least a month before the planned attack) constituted mere preparation and planning rather than a direct but ineffectual step towards murder. We shall therefore reverse the juvenile court’s findings and order on count 1, the attempted murder of the students at the middle school. II. Commitment to Secure Youth Treatment Facility Having determined that the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and order on the attempted murder count must be reversed, we need not consider whether the court abused its discretion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 8754 in committing the minor to SYTF. Reversing the attempted murder count means the minor no longer has an offense that qualifies for an SYTF commitment. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. 4 Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, subdivision (a)(1) provides: “In addition to the types of treatment specified in Sections 727 and 730, commencing July 1, 2021, the court may order that a ward who is 14 years of age or older be committed to a secure youth treatment facility for a period of confinement described in subdivision (b)” if the ward satisfies all of the enumerated statutory criteria, including that the juvenile is adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on an offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b) that was committed when the juvenile was 14 years of age or older. 16 (b).)5 We shall reverse the disposition order and remand for further disposition proceedings. DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and order regarding count 1 (attempted murder) are reversed. The disposition order is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further disposition proceedings. /s/ EARL, P. J. We concur: /s/ HULL, J. /s/ ROBIE, J. 5 Attempted murder is a qualifying offense under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b)(12), but neither of the minor’s possession offenses qualify for an SYTF commitment under the statute. 17