Legal Opinion

People v. R.O.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 25, 2009No. B208117PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ROTHSCHILD, J.

This case raises the question whether the juvenile court has discretion to set a lesser term of confinement than the indeterminate sentence applicable to an adult convicted of the same offense as the juvenile. We conclude that the juvenile court has discretion to set a lesser maximum term of confinement “based upon the facts and circumstances of the matter.” Therefore, we will remand the case to the court to exercise that discretion. In all other respects, the court’s orders are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

The Compton Varios 70s (CV70’s) and the Compton Varios…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ex parte Ah PeenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
  2. People v. Carlos E.California Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. People v. Charles G.California Court of Appeal · 2004
  4. People v. H.D.California Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. People v. Joseph M.California Court of Appeal · 2007

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People v. Greg F.California Supreme Court · 2012
  2. People v. A.G.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. People v. Greg F.California Supreme Court · 2012
  4. In re L.H.California Court of Appeal · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API