In re Israel A. CA5
Filed 3/4/13 In re Israel A. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re ISRAEL A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, F064724
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJD064652)
v. ISRAEL A., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juliet L. Boccone, Judge. Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Barton Bowers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Peña, J.
Appellant, Israel A., a minor, was initially adjudged a ward of the juvenile court in 2010, following his admission that he committed battery (Pen. Code, § 242), and he was readjudged a ward in 2011 following his admission of possession of live firearm ammunition by a minor (Pen. Code, § 12101, subd. (b)(1)). In 2012, in the instant case, the juvenile court, at a jurisdiction hearing, found true allegations set forth in a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) that appellant committed attempted first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 664/459, 460, subd. (a); count 1), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Former Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1);1 count 2) and second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); count 3). At the subsequent disposition hearing, on February 14, 2012, the court readjudged appellant a ward of the court and ordered that he serve 365 days in the Tulare County Youth Facility, under the supervision of the probation officer. On appeal, appellant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudication on count 1, and (2) the court failed to declare whether the count 2 offense was a felony or misdemeanor, in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 (section 702). The People concede both points. We reverse appellant‟s adjudication of attempted burglary and remand for a new disposition hearing.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)