legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Albert T.
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, Albert T., already a delinquent ward based on earlier offenses (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 602; all further undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code), admitted committing second degree commercial burglary. The court placed him on home probation with certain conditions. Later, after a contested hearing pursuant to section 777 based on allegations of various probation violations, the court imposed a more restrictive placement despite finding "that there's [no] demonstrated violation of probation."
Albert appeals, contending that the court erred in imposing a more restrictive placement despite finding no probation violation. We agree, reverse the order imposing a more restrictive placement, and in all other respects affirm the judgment (order continuing wardship).

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