In Jesus O.
The juvenile court sustained allegations of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging the juvenile committed grand theft person and attempted second degree robbery. The juvenile appealed from the courts order of wardship, claiming the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of either offense. He also claimed a probation condition ordering him to stay away from areas where users congregate was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The juvenile further contended the court erred in failing to declare on the record whether the grand theft person wobbler offense would be a misdemeanor or felony for an adult convicted of the same offense. Finally, the juvenile argued the maximum term of commitment set by the court should be stricken as both erroneous and unnecessary where the disposition the court ordered was home on probation.
In Court's initial decision Court concluded the evidence did not support a finding the juvenile took the property from the person as is required for the offense of grand theft person. Court thus reduced the offense to misdemeanor petty theft, a lesser included offense of grand theft person. Court also modified the courts order with respect to the challenged probation condition and affirmed the courts order in all other respects. The Supreme Court granted the Peoples petition for review. In In re Jesus O. the Supreme Court concluded the evidence of the juveniles intent to steal, plus the later taking of property which had been on the victims person, was, in combination, sufficient to sustain the grand theft person offense. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter to this court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
On remand the parties filed letter briefs addressing omitted and other issues. Court now affirm the juvenile courts findings sustaining the allegations of the petition.
Comments on In Jesus O.