legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re D.T.

In re D.T.
06:02:2011

In re D


In re D.T.



Filed 3/9/11 In re D.T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(San Joaquin)
----



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



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D. T.,

Defendant and Appellant.


C064880

(Super. Ct. No. 67325)



Minor D. T., age 17, admitted that he came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed robbery in which he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a pellet gun. In exchange, five related counts and an unrelated juvenile wardship petition were dismissed in the interest of justice. The minor was committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (the division).
On appeal, the minor contends the division commitment was an abuse of discretion because: (1) the juvenile court did not give appropriate consideration to less restrictive alternatives to the division; and (2) the evidence does not support the court's conclusion that the division commitment would benefit the minor. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2009, the minor approached Hilario Garrido while he was in a car. The minor drew a â€




Description Minor D. T., age 17, admitted that he came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed robbery in which he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a pellet gun. In exchange, five related counts and an unrelated juvenile wardship petition were dismissed in the interest of justice. The minor was committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (the division).
On appeal, the minor contends the division commitment was an abuse of discretion because: (1) the juvenile court did not give appropriate consideration to less restrictive alternatives to the division; and (2) the evidence does not support the court's conclusion that the division commitment would benefit the minor. We affirm.
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