Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Jonathan A., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court v. Jonathan A

March 6, 2013

IN RE JONATHAN A., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
JONATHAN A., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. JV132275)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , J.

In re Jonathan A. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging the minor, Jonathan A., committed three felonies: (1) battery on a peace officer, including personal infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 243, subd. (c)(2), 12022.7)*fn1 (2) resisting an officer (§ 69, as amended by Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 235 [amending sentencing provisions]); and (3) battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The juvenile court adjudicated the minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation with conditions.

On appeal, the minor contends: (1) the court's finding on the charge of resisting an officer must be reversed because it is a lesser included offense of battery on a peace officer; (2) the maximum term of confinement should be stricken; and (3) the probation condition restricting the minor's ability to travel is unconstitutional and should be stricken. We reject the minor's first and third contentions. In examining the statutory elements, felony battery on a peace officer is not a necessarily included offense to the offense of resisting an officer. By not objecting to the probation condition in juvenile court, the minor has forfeited any challenge to the reasonableness of the probation condition restricting his travel. Further, under the circumstances, the probation condition restricting the minor's travel within a 10-mile radius of his home without permission is not an unreasonable restriction of his rights. As to the second contention, we agree the maximum term of confinement should be stricken. The juvenile court had no statutory authority to impose a term of imprisonment because the minor was released to the custody of his legal guardian subject to court probation. Accordingly, we strike the maximum term of confinement. In all other respects, the juvenile court's orders are affirmed.

BACKGROUND

On January 17, 2011, a woman called a pizza restaurant and ordered a pizza delivered. When the pizza delivery person arrived at the designated address, he was robbed of the pizza. The victim described several individuals participating in the robbery, including two "male [B]lack juveniles." The police traced the phone number used to order the pizza to Cynthia Lee, who lived a few houses down from where the pizza was to be delivered.

Law enforcement officers, including Officer Karl Chan, went to Cynthia's home and were invited in by John Anderson. Inside, Officer Chan saw approximately eight people in the home.

Initially, "[i]t was a very calm scene and everybody was very cooperative." Officer Chan asked to speak to the three male juveniles or young adults in the home, including the minor (who was 14 years old at the time). Officer Chan spoke with the minor in the garage, which had been converted into a bedroom. He told the minor there had been a robbery across the street and asked if the minor knew anything about it. The minor was cooperative, but offered no information. Officer Chan left the house and returned to the scene of the robbery.

After Officer Chan left Cynthia's home, Officer Matt Hoffman entered the home. Officer Hoffman learned there was an individual in the home who was on probation so he conducted a probation search of the home. During the search, Officer Hoffman found slices of pizza inside the closet in the converted garage. The officers then gathered six to seven suspects in the living room, intending to place each one in a separate patrol car.

When Officer Hoffman returned to the living room, the minor was sitting on the couch with his grandmother. As soon as Officer Hoffman started detaining the suspects, the minor became "very outspoken, yelling F this, F that, you need a warrant," and was "being very uncooperative." As Hoffman attempted to handcuff the minor, the minor said, "fuck that" and kicked his left leg back into Officer Hoffman's knee. Officer Hoffman's knee collapsed and he fell to the ground. His ACL tendon was fully torn.

The minor was taken into custody and a wardship petition filed. The amended petition alleged the minor committed battery on a peace officer (§ 243, subd. (c)(2)), and inflicted great bodily injury on the same officer (§ 12022.7). The petition also alleged the minor resisted a peace officer (§ 69) and committed the crime of battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)).

At the contested jurisdiction hearing, the minor's family members testified the minor did not kick Officer Hoffman, that Officer Hoffman's injury was the result of an accident. The juvenile court was not persuaded and found true the allegations in the amended petition. The juvenile ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.