CA Unpub Decisions

Appointed counsel for defendant, Jose Luis Gutierrez, Jr., has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record has found errors in the court’s imposition of fines, fees, and assessments that we will direct the trial court to correct; we otherwise affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant, Jose Luis Gutierrez, Jr., has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record has found errors in the court’s imposition of fines, fees, and assessments that we will direct the trial court to correct; we otherwise affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant, Jose Luis Gutierrez, Jr., has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record has found errors in the court’s imposition of fines, fees, and assessments that we will direct the trial court to correct; we otherwise affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant, Jose Luis Gutierrez, Jr., has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record has found errors in the court’s imposition of fines, fees, and assessments that we will direct the trial court to correct; we otherwise affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant, Jose Luis Gutierrez, Jr., has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record has found errors in the court’s imposition of fines, fees, and assessments that we will direct the trial court to correct; we otherwise affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant, Jose Luis Gutierrez, Jr., has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record has found errors in the court’s imposition of fines, fees, and assessments that we will direct the trial court to correct; we otherwise affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Justin Derek Hill filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After examining the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm.

Minor M. K. was placed on probation after the juvenile court found he had committed forcible rape. On appeal, minor raises several evidentiary-related challenges, as well as challenges to two probation conditions the juvenile court imposed. We agree with minor, but only in that his probation conditions must be stricken and the matter remanded for the juvenile court to impose more tailored probation conditions. Otherwise we affirm.

Minor M. K. was placed on probation after the juvenile court found he had committed forcible rape. On appeal, minor raises several evidentiary-related challenges, as well as challenges to two probation conditions the juvenile court imposed. We agree with minor, but only in that his probation conditions must be stricken and the matter remanded for the juvenile court to impose more tailored probation conditions. Otherwise we affirm.

Minor M. K. was placed on probation after the juvenile court found he had committed forcible rape. On appeal, minor raises several evidentiary-related challenges, as well as challenges to two probation conditions the juvenile court imposed. We agree with minor, but only in that his probation conditions must be stricken and the matter remanded for the juvenile court to impose more tailored probation conditions. Otherwise we affirm.

Minor M. K. was placed on probation after the juvenile court found he had committed forcible rape. On appeal, minor raises several evidentiary-related challenges, as well as challenges to two probation conditions the juvenile court imposed. We agree with minor, but only in that his probation conditions must be stricken and the matter remanded for the juvenile court to impose more tailored probation conditions. Otherwise we affirm.

Minor M. K. was placed on probation after the juvenile court found he had committed forcible rape. On appeal, minor raises several evidentiary-related challenges, as well as challenges to two probation conditions the juvenile court imposed. We agree with minor, but only in that his probation conditions must be stricken and the matter remanded for the juvenile court to impose more tailored probation conditions. Otherwise we affirm.

Minor M. K. was placed on probation after the juvenile court found he had committed forcible rape. On appeal, minor raises several evidentiary-related challenges, as well as challenges to two probation conditions the juvenile court imposed. We agree with minor, but only in that his probation conditions must be stricken and the matter remanded for the juvenile court to impose more tailored probation conditions. Otherwise we affirm.

Minor M. K. was placed on probation after the juvenile court found he had committed forcible rape. On appeal, minor raises several evidentiary-related challenges, as well as challenges to two probation conditions the juvenile court imposed. We agree with minor, but only in that his probation conditions must be stricken and the matter remanded for the juvenile court to impose more tailored probation conditions. Otherwise we affirm.