seal

Court Case Record The People v. O.S. A151945 UID(1b61)


The People v. O.S. Court Case Record

Court Case Number: A151945


 
Case NumberA151945
Case TitleThe People v. O.S.
Case Type
StateCalifornia, CA
CountyAll Counties
CourtAppellate Court
Court Address1st Appellate District
Phone
Field Date07/17/2017
Close Date8/21/2018
Documentpdf

Parties

CounselNameType

Office of the Attorney General455 Golden Gate Avenue - Suite 11000San Francisco, CA94102-7004Contact Name: Ronald Niver
The PeoplePlaintiff and Respondent

First District Appellate Project475 Fourteenth Street, Suite 650Oakland, CA94612
Jamie M. Weyand475 Fourteenth Street, Suite 650Oakland, CA94612
O. S.Defendant and Appellant
Docket
Date Description Notes
07/24/2017 Notice of appeal lodged/received. By attorney Alex Northcutt for O.S. (Minor)
08/09/2017 Record on appeal filed. CT 1 - RT 15
08/10/2017 Counsel appointment order filed. Jamie Weyand / Assisted / 55 days
10/12/2017 Default sent to court appointed counsel. Defendant and Appellant: O. S. Attorney: Jamie M. Weyand
10/23/2017 Appellant's opening brief. Defendant and Appellant: O. S. Attorney: Jamie M. Weyand
11/28/2017 Respondent notified re failure to file respondent's brief. Plaintiff and Respondent: The People Attorney: Office of the Attorney General
12/22/2017 Requested - extension of time. Respondent's brief. Requested for 01/26/2018 By 29 Day(s)
12/22/2017 Granted - extension of time. Respondent's brief. Due on 01/26/2018 By 29 Day(s)
01/26/2018 Respondent's brief. Plaintiff and Respondent: The People Attorney: Office of the Attorney General
02/14/2018 Appellant's reply brief. Defendant and Appellant: O. S. Attorney: Jamie M. Weyand
02/14/2018 Case fully briefed.
03/01/2018 Oral argument waiver notice sent.
03/01/2018 Request for oral argument filed by: attorney Jamie Weyand for appellant
03/22/2018 Filed letter from: FDAP; Jamie Weyand, attorney for appellant O.S., is now a FDAP staff attorney
03/22/2018 Filed order vacating and appointing new counsel. Jamie Weyand now appointed as a FDAP staff attorney.
06/04/2018 Calendar notice sent. Calendar date: July 18, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
07/05/2018 Order filed. This matter is scheduled for oral argument on July 18, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. In addition to any other matters the parties may wish to argue, the court asks counsel to address the following: (1) Was the arresting officer's obligation to transport the minor to a protective detoxification facility obviated by the minor's concurrent arrest for commission of the misdemeanor offense of possession of alcohol by a minor (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25662, subd. (a))? (2) Is the electronic search condition imposed unconstitutionally overbroad as not narrowly tailored to limit its impact the minor's constitutional right to privacy? The court is familiar with the issues presented and will allow each side a total of ten (10) minutes for oral argument. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256(c).)
07/18/2018 Cause argued and submitted.
08/03/2018 Opinion filed. (Signed Unpublished) The electronic search condition is stricken and remanded to the juvenile court for modification consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
08/09/2018 Rehearing petition filed.
08/21/2018 Mod. of opinion filed (no change in judgment). THE COURT: Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied. It is ordered that the opinion filed on August 3, 2018, is modified as follows: On page 10, at the beginning of footnote 7, the following is added: In a petition for rehearing, Omar contends he (obliquely) argued we must reverse in the absence of explicit testimony from Davis that he did not comply with section 647, subdivision (g)'s civil commitment requirement because he concluded subdivision (g)(2) applied. Assuming the argument is properly before us, we decline the invitation to extend the case law. In re Jorge D. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 363 did not so hold, and the statutory language is clear. (See People v. Ambellas, supra, 85 Cal.App.3d Supp. at p. 33, fn 6 [if defendant suggests § 647, subd. (g) is a defense, "the People should readily be able to establish, through the testimony of the officer, why the defendant fell within one of the three categories of persons not entitled to subdivision [g] benefits"]; see also id. at pp. 30-33, & fns. 4.) The modification effects no change in the judgment.
08/21/2018 Order denying rehearing petition filed.
Disposition
***** *****
Description: Affirmed but sentence modifications ordered
Date: 08/03/2018
Disposition Type: Final The electronic search condition is stricken and remanded to the juvenile court for modification consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Publication Status: Signed Unpublished
Author: Bruiniers, Terence L.
Participants: Jones, Barbara J. R. (Concur) Simons, Mark B. (Concur)
Case Citation: none