In re E.G. CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 27, 2015H040886California3,498 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Appellant E.G. admitted the allegations that he committed an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4))1 and grand theft (§§ 484-487, subd. (c)). The juvenile court declared E.G. a ward of the court and committed him to the county Juvenile Rehabilitation Facilities, Enhanced Ranch Program (the Ranch) for six to eight months, followed by probation. The court imposed various terms of probation. E.G. raises several contentions on appeal. First, E.G. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the Ranch without further 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated. investigating other options. E.G. also challenges a no-contact probation condition on the ground that it is unconstitutionally vague. Lastly, E.G. contends, and the Attorney General agrees, that the case should be remanded as the juvenile court did not expressly find whether his grand theft offense was a misdemeanor or a felony. As we will explain below, we find no error in the court’s determination to commit E.G. to the Ranch. However, we will reverse and remand the matter for the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.