legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re ORLANDO C.,

In re ORLANDO C.,
08:24:2010



In re ORLANDO C






In re >ORLANDO > C.,



















Filed 6/21/10;
part. pub. order 7/20/10 (see end of opn.)















IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
TWO




>










In re ORLANDO
C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.


B216904



(Los Angeles
County

Super. Ct.
No. VJ37043)




THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and Respondent,



v.



ORLANDO
C.,



Defendant and Appellant.









APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County. Heidi W. Shirley,
Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed with
directions.



Kevin D.
Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.



Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan
and Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Orlando C.,
a minor (minor), appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 602[1] by reason of his having willfully disobeyed a
court order (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (a)(4)) by violating a gang
injunction. The juvenile court placed
him on informal probation for six months, setting a maximum term of confinement
of six months. Minor contends that
vacation of the judgment and dismissal of the section 602 petition are required
because (1) he was not a person subject to the gang injunction, (2) there was
no evidence his parent had been served with, or had knowledge of, the gang
injunction, and (3) the gang injunction is constitutionally overbroad,
violating his constitutional rights to freedom of association and travel or
movement. Minor also requests that we
correct the minute order of May 12,
2009, to accurately identify the petition that the juvenile court
sustained and the petition that it dismissed.

We affirm
with directions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The section 602 petitions

On November
7, 2008, the district attorney filed two section 602 petitions against minor,
each alleging a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 166, subdivision
(a)(4), for â€




Description Orlando C., a minor (minor), appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1] by reason of his having willfully disobeyed a court order (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (a)(4)) by violating a gang injunction. The juvenile court placed him on informal probation for six months, setting a maximum term of confinement of six months. Minor contends that vacation of the judgment and dismissal of the section 602 petition are required because (1) he was not a person subject to the gang injunction, (2) there was no evidence his parent had been served with, or had knowledge of, the gang injunction, and (3) the gang injunction is constitutionally overbroad, violating his constitutional rights to freedom of association and travel or movement. Minor also requests that we correct the minute order of May 12, 2009, to accurately identify the petition that the juvenile court sustained and the petition that it dismissed. Court affirm with directions.
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