legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re A.J. CA5
This matter involves a minor who comes before this court for the third time in four years. In 2018, we affirmed the juvenile court after it found true that appellant had committed (1) residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459); (2) robbery (§ 211); (3) assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); and (4) battery with infliction of serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). (In re A.J. (Dec. 14, 2018, F075246) [nonpub. opn.].)
While that first appeal was pending, appellant incurred various violations of probation. In November 2018, appellant was again deemed a ward of the juvenile court and his physical custody was removed from his parent or guardian. A maximum term of confinement of nine years four months was set.
In 2020, we concluded in an unpublished opinion that the maximum term of confinement had been erroneously calculated because some of the sentences imposed should have been stayed under section 654.

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
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale