Fear Not Law Articles: In re Christina L.

In re Christina L

In re Christina L.

Filed 2/6/07 In re Christina L. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re CHRISTINA L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CHRISTINA L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F051169

(Super. Ct. No. J1445)

OPINION

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Thomas S. Burr, Commissioner.

Rex Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Lloyd G. Carter, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

On July 26, 2006, following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true an allegation that appellant Christina L., a minor at the time of that hearing, committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211; 212.5, subd. (c)). Following the subsequent disposition hearing on August 30, 2006, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and placed her on probation in the custody of her mother. As a condition of probation, the court directed appellant as follows: â€

Description	On July 26, 2006, following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true an allegation that appellant Christina L., a minor at the time of that hearing, committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, SS 211; 212.5, subd. (c)). Following the subsequent disposition hearing on August 30, 2006, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and placed her on probation in the custody of her mother. As a condition of probation, the court directed appellant as follows: "If you have graduated from school or are eighteen years of age, you must seek and maintain at least 32 hour[s] a week of gainful employment." Court refer to this condition of probation as the employment condition. On appeal, appellant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her adjudication of robbery; (2) the employment condition was invalid; and (3) if appellant's challenge to the employment condition is deemed waived by the failure to object to that condition, appellant was denied her constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. Court modify the employment condition and otherwise affirm the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.