legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Christopher H

In re Christopher H
06:14:2006

In re Christopher H


In re Christopher H


 


Filed 5/15/06  In re Christopher H. CA2/4


 


 


 


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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







In re CHRISTOPHER  H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.


THE PEOPLE,


                      Plaintiff and Respondent,


                      v.


CHRISTOPHER  H.,


                      Defendant and Appellant.


          B181337


          (Los Angeles County


          Super. Ct. No. PJ35830)


                      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Morton Rochman, Judge.  Affirmed as modified.


                      Sally P. Brajevich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


                      Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Ana R. Duarte and Viet  H. Guyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


                      Christopher  H. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that he committed a second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A).  He was placed in a camp community placement program and the maximum period of confinement was determined to be 15 years.  He claims the gang enhancement must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to support the finding.  He also claims the minute order must be clarified.  For reasons stated in the opinion, we modify the minute order regarding disposition and in all other respects affirm the order.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY


                        On January 20, 2005, at approximately 11:45 a.m., Edgar Aguirre[1] was in front of his residence on Hazeltine Avenue in Van Nuys, when he heard someone yelling something.  He did not pay much attention to it, but then as he walked towards his front door, he heard someone yell, â€





Description A decision regarding second degree robbery assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale