In re J.L.

Full title: In re J.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

Date published: Jul 12, 2012

No. B231854 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 12, 2012)

Opinion

Page 825a

207 Cal.App.4th 825a __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ In re J.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.L., Defendant and Appellant. B231854 California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division July 12, 2012

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VJ40126

ORDERING MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

THE COURT.

GOOD CAUSE appearing, the opinion filed June 12, 2012, 206 Cal.App.4th 1182;___Cal.Rptr.3d___, in the above entitled matter is hereby modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:

1. On page 4 [206 Cal.App.4th 1186, advance report, 1st full par., lines 3-4], lines 3-4, of Discussion section A.2., eliminate the sentence that begins “As to the actual attack...” and ends “on defendant’s head” and replace it with the following: “As to the actual attack, the evidence was that appellant used his hands and feet to hit, kick, and stomp on Isaac’s head.”

2. On page 4, line 6 [206 Cal.App.4th 1186, advance report, 2d full par., line 2], of Discussion section A.2., eliminate the phrase “hit and kneed Isaac” and replace it with “punched Isaac in the face and kicked him in the shoulder....”

3. On page 5 [206 Cal.App.4th 1186, advance report, 3d full par., line 9], line 1, eliminate “10” and replace it with “multiple.”

4. On the last line of page 5 [206 Cal.App.4th 1187, advance report, 2d par., line 6], add the following footnote after the sentence that ends “was used as a deadly weapon.”: “As appellant notes in his opening brief, the petition alleged that he used his feet and fists as deadly weapons, and did not mention the sidewalk. Appellant also notes that defense counsel did not object that the use of the sidewalk was uncharged when the prosecution first raised the theory during closing argument, which we deem an implied concession that the issue was waived. (People v. Toro (1989) 47 Cal.3d 966, 973 [254 Cal.Rptr. 811, 766 P.2d 577], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 568, fn. 3 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 239, 957 P.2d 928].)"

Page 825b

No change in judgment.

Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

BIGELOW, P. J. RUBIN, J. GRIMES, J.