In re Steven R.
After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that appellant Steven R. had committed six counts and appellant Jeremy R. had committed one count of forcible lewd conduct on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)). Steven and Jeremy were both placed on probation. On appeal, both Steven and Jeremy contend that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s jurisdictional findings, (2) their trial counsel were prejudicially deficient in failing to object to the admission of the victim’s notes about their offenses, (3) the trial court erred in excluding some defense evidence, (4) the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct in his examination of defense witnesses and a rebuttal witness, (5) the court utilized the wrong standard to determine their knowledge of the wrongfulness of their conduct, (6) the court improperly relied on extrajudicial information in making its jurisdictional findings, (7) the court erred in denying their request for a jury trial, (8) some of the probation conditions are invalid or require modification, (9) the court erred in its imposition of general fund fines and penalty assessments, and (10) the court erred in ordering payment of attorney’s fees in the absence of substantial evidence of ability to pay. Steven individually asserts that his trial counsel was prejudicially deficient in failing to object to the admission of recordings of a pretext call and a police interview with him. Jeremy separately contends that the court erred in ordering a copy of the transcript of the pretext call between the victim and Steven to be provided to Jeremy’s counselor. We reject their challenges to the court’s jurisdictional findings. However, we remand these matters with directions for the court to modify the probation conditions, clarify the amount of Steven’s general fund fine, and state the statutory bases for the general fund fines and penalty assessments imposed on both Steven and Jeremy.
Comments on In re Steven R.