legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Fernando M.
A petition filed in the juvenile court alleged Fernando M. came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1] based on the allegation of one count of misdemeanor indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. (1)). After a trial on the issue, the court sustained the allegation.

At the disposition hearing, the court decided to "follow probation's recommendation[s]," which included: (1) continued wardship; (2) care, custody, and control of Fernando under the supervision of the probation officer; (3) detention in juvenile hall pending a Breaking Cycles reassessment; (4) a discretionary fine in the amount of $60 (§ 730.5); and (5) a mandatory fine in the amount of $50 (§ 730.6).

Fernando contends imposition of the $60 fine was never orally pronounced by the court at the disposition hearing and should therefore be stricken. He further contends the imposition of the $60 fine is in error because the court did not consider his ability to pay it. We conclude that the court did pronounce imposition of the fine because it was a part of the probation report's recommendations and Fernando forfeited his claim regarding his ability to pay the fine.

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