Fear Not Law Articles: In re Albert T.

In re Albert T

In re Albert T.

Filed 1/31/07 In re Albert T. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re ALBERT T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B187483

(L. A. Super. Ct. No. JJ 10568)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

ALBERT T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert S. Ambrose, Juvenile Court Referee. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

________

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner and Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Robert F. Katz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, Albert T., already a delinquent ward based on earlier offenses (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; all further undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code), admitted committing second degree commercial burglary. The court placed him on home probation with certain conditions. Later, after a contested hearing pursuant to section 777 based on allegations of various probation violations, the court imposed a more restrictive placement despite finding â€

Description	Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, Albert T., already a delinquent ward based on earlier offenses (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 602; all further undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code), admitted committing second degree commercial burglary. The court placed him on home probation with certain conditions. Later, after a contested hearing pursuant to section 777 based on allegations of various probation violations, the court imposed a more restrictive placement despite finding "that there's [no] demonstrated violation of probation." Albert appeals, contending that the court erred in imposing a more restrictive placement despite finding no probation violation. We agree, reverse the order imposing a more restrictive placement, and in all other respects affirm the judgment (order continuing wardship).
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.