Sight Translation – Practice 6
Original
It is my understanding that the defendant had been charged with a 273.5 on November 10, 1999.He entered a no contest plea and he was sentenced to 90 days in county jail straight. At the time he entered a no contest plea, he had been 15 days actual and 7 days good time.I believe that this was his second encounter with the law. The first one was a strike.
He was sent out to a State prison in Chino, California and served 2 years.
He was released on parole and no violation of parole was reported as of this date.
By the way, your Honor, he was in Chino for a violation of 215, assault with a deadly weapon upon a minor with the enhancement of attempted rape.
Your Honor, we understand that the offense committed by my client is a serious and violent felony.However, we believe that that strike was an isolated incident and my client should not be convicted for the rest of his life for an offense that he did admit having committed and that he paid for.
It seems that the People want to use his prior record to enhance my client’s latest offense which as Your Honor knows is a wobbler.
Hit and Run Your Honor, is generally a misdemeanor but the People have indicated in their complaint that they want it to be a wobbler for the time being and that they will decide before the pretrial hearing whether they will charge my client with misdemeanor hit and run or felony hit and run.
I understand that the People have the right to file a complaint with a charge classified as a wobbler, but what I do not understand is why this Court is allowing the People to base their decision on priors that are not related in any way or manner with the offense at hand.
I respectfully request from you, Your Honor, that you rule in conformity with the law. Specifically with section 291 of the Evidentiary code.
On another matter, your Honor, in case number JV201938, The People Vs Roberto G., a minor, the Petitioner filed a petition against Roberto G for a violation of 288.
The defense requested a Dennis H. Hearing and also filed a W&I 700.1 motion.
I remind the Court that there was no adjudicaton in this matter and therefore it was decided by the Juvenile Court judge that the minor should be HOP and should not be sent to camp or Juvenile Hall.
Now, the Petitioner requests a fitness hearing after the Court has found the petition to be not true.
Therefore, a W&I 701.1 motion was filed and the minor wassent home on probation.
Finally your Honor, case JV201938 has been overwhelmingly hard to counsel due to the nature of the charges and the fact that the Petition was not filed in accordance to the Welfare and Institutions Codes but rather it was filed according to the Penal Code which we all know, it is the code that governs adult offenders and not juvenile defendants.
All these irregularities made it hard for the defense to properly prepare forthe case and we had to overcome several hurdles that were placedby the Petitioner for either lack of knowledge of the law as it is applied to minors or they purposely placed these hurdles to make the defense’s job morecomplicated than what it actually should be.
I believe that the Court should look at the case file of the Petitioner versus Roberto G. and find Petitioner in contempt of court. Submitted, Your Honor.