In re ANTHONY C.
Filed 4/28/06 (opn. on rehearing)
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
| In re ANTHONY C., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________________ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY C., Defendant and Appellant. | C048529
(Super. Ct. No. JV110110)
OPINION ON REHEARING
|
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Peter Mering, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Sac. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal Const.) Reversed.
Heather J. MacKay, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Continued from Part II……..
Nor does Vernal D., supra, 142 Cal.App.3d 29, stand for the narrow proposition asserted by the dissent. In Vernal D., the court held that section 1800 et seq. was unconstitutional because it authorized extended commitment of a juvenile detainee based on a less than unanimous jury verdict. In so holding, the court stated, â€
