legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Eduardo J.

In re Eduardo J.
03:04:2007

In re Eduardo J


In re Eduardo J.


Filed 1/23/07  In re Eduardo J. CA2/3


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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







In re EDUARDO J., a Person Coming


Under the Juvenile Court Law.


_____________________________________


THE PEOPLE,


           Plaintiff and Respondent,


            v.


EDUARDO J.,


           Defendant and Appellant.



        B187778


       (Los Angeles County


       Super. Ct. No. GJ21853)



            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County


Morton Rochman, Judge.  Affirmed.


            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, Roberta L. Davis, and Ryan B. McCarroll, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


_________________________


            By petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section  602, it was alleged that appellant Eduardo  J. had committed felony battery and robbery.  Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found Eduardo had committed two lesser included offenses:  misdemeanor battery on a school employee and attempted grand theft from the person (Pen. Code, §§  243.6, 487).[1]  The juvenile court ordered Eduardo home on probation, with a maximum confinement time of one year and ten months.  Eduardo appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to sustain either finding.


            The judgment is affirmed.


BACKGROUND


            Viewed in accordance with the usual rule of appellate review (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206, we find the evidence established the following.       


            1.  Prosecution evidence.


            Russell Gustafson worked as a teacher for students who had not been successful in a regular school setting.  He testified that, at time of the incident, he was holding a clipboard with paperwork attached to it:  â€





Description By petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, it was alleged that appellant Eduardo J. had committed felony battery and robbery. Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found Eduardo had committed two lesser included offenses: misdemeanor battery on a school employee and attempted grand theft from the person (Pen. Code, SS 243.6, 487). The juvenile court ordered Eduardo home on probation, with a maximum confinement time of one year and ten months. Eduardo appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to sustain either finding.
The judgment is affirmed.

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