legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Jonathan H.
A supplemental juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged defendant had committed a number of crimes, including conspiracy to commit a robbery (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1))[1] and petty theft (§§ 484, 488). The juvenile court denied defendant’s motion to suppress his confession to the police. At the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing, the court found true seven allegations of petty theft and one allegation of conspiracy to rob.
On appeal, defendant contends that the juvenile court erred when it denied his motion to exclude his confession to the police because, according to defendant, his confession was coerced and his waiver of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) was not voluntary. He also maintains that substantial evidence did not support his convictions and that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over three of the petty theft convictions. We conclude that substantial evidence did not support the true findings on two of the counts of petty theft but otherwise affirm the jurisdictional and dispositional orders.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

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

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale