Fear Not Law Articles: In re K.T.

In re K

In re K.T.

Filed 2/13/07 In re K.T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 K.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

K.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B190140

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. KJ27552)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steff Padilla, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Jolene Larimore, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

K.T. appeals from an order continuing wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that he committed a first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.)[1] He was placed in the care, custody and control of the probation officer for suitable placement and contends discovery of his fingerprints four days after the burglary on the window used to enter the house did not provide the required substantial evidence of guilt. He additionally claims probation conditions which fail to give him reasonable notice as to what conduct is forbidden are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. For reasons stated in the opinion, we affirm the order of wardship.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On December 25, 2005, at approximately noon, Shavette Brown left her home on Cornuta Avenue in Bellflower. When she left, her windows were closed and the doors were locked. When she and her family returned that evening, Anthony B. was on her property. She knew him because he attended her son's school. When she entered her home, she saw CDs, DVDs, and the box to her husband's watch on the floor. The watch was missing as was an electronic game. â€

Description	Appellant appeals from an order continuing wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that he committed a first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, S 459.) Appellant was placed in the care, custody and control of the probation officer for suitable placement and contends discovery of his fingerprints four days after the burglary on the window used to enter the house did not provide the required substantial evidence of guilt. Appellant additionally claims probation conditions which fail to give him reasonable notice as to what conduct is forbidden are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. For reasons stated in the opinion, court affirm the order of wardship.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.