legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Tommy M. CA1/4
Tommy M., when one month shy of his 18th birthday, participated in the robbery of a young woman’s cell phone and then ran from the police when they tried to apprehend him. He was adjudged a ward of the court as a result, with true findings that he had committed a felony second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5) and resisted arrest, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 148). He claims on appeal that a police investigator violated his Miranda rights when he asked Tommy for his phone number as biographical identifying data, without administering a Miranda warning. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda).) He further claims the court erred in denying his Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden)) and denying his attorney’s simultaneous motion to withdraw as counsel due to a “conflict of interest.” He contends there was insufficient evidence to identify him as one of the robbers. With respect to disposition, Tommy argues an electronics search c

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