legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re S.C. CA4/3
S.C. (defendant) was a minor when the instant case commenced. Now an adult, he appeals from a juvenile court order finding he did not satisfactorily complete juvenile probation. He argues the court’s error thereby denied him the benefits of Welfare and Institutions Code section 786, which would have allowed the juvenile wardship petition against him to be dismissed. It is true defendant was denied the benefits of section 786, but it was due to his pleading guilty as an adult to felony burglary, not due to any court error. The juvenile court correctly determined defendant’s guilty plea was a “conviction” for purposes of section 786 and that defendant therefore did not satisfactorily complete juvenile probation. Accordingly we affirm.

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