legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Clarence W.

In re Clarence W.
02:28:2007

In re Clarence W


In re Clarence W.


Filed 2/7/07  In re Clarence W. CA1/1


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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


FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION ONE










In re CLARENCE W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.


THE PEOPLE,


            Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


CLARENCE W.,


            Defendant and Appellant.


      A113441


      (Contra Costa County


      Super. Ct. No. J05-01334)


            Defendant admitted that he committed the offense of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, §  245, subd. (a)(2)), with infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §  12022.7, subd. (a)), as alleged in an amended petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section  602.[1]  Following a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court committed defendant to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)[2] for a maximum term of seven years.  In this appeal defendant complains that the DJJ commitment is not supported by evidence of benefit to him.  We conclude that the dispositional order was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion, and affirm the judgment.


STATEMENT OF FACTS[3]


            On August 1, 2005, defendant, then 15 years old, walked from central Richmond to the â€





Description Defendant admitted that he committed the offense of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, S 245, subd. (a)(2)), with infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, S 12022.7, subd. (a)), as alleged in an amended petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Following a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court committed defendant to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum term of seven years. In this appeal defendant complains that the DJJ commitment is not supported by evidence of benefit to him. Court conclude that the dispositional order was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion, and affirm the judgment.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale