transcript of the dispositional hearing (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

transcript of the dispositional hearing in California

7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2013 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Dennis C.green
calctapp · 1980 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1981–1997
2 sentences

1997The mere specification in the petition of an alternative felony/misdemeanor offense as a felony has been held insufficient to show that the court made the decision and finding required by [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 702 [Citation.] Similarly, the setting of a felony-level maximum period of confinement has been held inadequate to comply with the mandate of [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 702 ( In re Dennis C . (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 16 , 23 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 496 ].) While the minutes of the dispositional hearing recited that the minor was committed to the Youth Authority *Page

1997The mere specification in the petition of an alternative felony/misdemeanor offense as a felony has been held insufficient to show that the court made the decision and finding required by [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 702 [Citation.] Similarly, the setting of a felony-level maximum period of confinement has been held inadequate to comply with the mandate of [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 702 ( In re Dennis C . (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 16 , 23 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 496 ].) While the minutes of the dispositional hearing recited that the minor was committed to the Youth Authority *Page

23
In Re Kevin S.green
calctapp · 1996 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996(In re Cody W. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 221 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 848 ]; see also In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885-886 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 763 ], and authority cited therein.) The transcript of the dispositional hearing reveals that this “bare-bones” plan was adopted at the urging of Carmen’s counsel and was consented to by all of the parties involved.

1996(In re Cody W. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 221 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 848 ]; see also In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885-886 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 763 ], and authority cited therein.) The transcript of the dispositional hearing reveals that this “bare-bones” plan was adopted at the urging of Carmen’s counsel and was consented to by all of the parties involved.

22
In Re John S.green
calctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013(See In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616, 620-621 [express findings not required under section 726]; In re John S. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 285, 292 [section 726 finding need not be in exact words of statute where the substance of such finding appears in the record]; In re Willy L. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 256, 266 [“such requisite finding may be inferred from the transcript”]; In re Ricardo M. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 744, 749-751 [where the necessary findings under section 726 are expressly or implicitly made by the court and supported by the evidence, the court may impose juvenile hall time as a cond

2013(See In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616, 620-621 [express findings not required under section 726]; In re John S. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 285, 292 [section 726 finding need not be in exact words of statute where the substance of such finding appears in the record]; In re Willy L. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 256, 266 [“such requisite finding may be inferred from the transcript”]; In re Ricardo M. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 744, 749-751 [where the necessary findings under section 726 are expressly or implicitly made by the court and supported by the evidence, the court may impose juvenile hall time as a cond

11
Graver v. Willy L.green
calctapp · 1976 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013(See In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616, 620-621 [express findings not required under section 726]; In re John S. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 285, 292 [section 726 finding need not be in exact words of statute where the substance of such finding appears in the record]; In re Willy L. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 256, 266 [“such requisite finding may be inferred from the transcript”]; In re Ricardo M. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 744, 749-751 [where the necessary findings under section 726 are expressly or implicitly made by the court and supported by the evidence, the court may impose juvenile hall time as a cond

11
In Re Ricardo M.green
calctapp · 1975 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013(See In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616, 620-621 [express findings not required under section 726]; In re John S. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 285, 292 [section 726 finding need not be in exact words of statute where the substance of such finding appears in the record]; In re Willy L. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 256, 266 [“such requisite finding may be inferred from the transcript”]; In re Ricardo M. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 744, 749-751 [where the necessary findings under section 726 are expressly or implicitly made by the court and supported by the evidence, the court may impose juvenile hall time as a cond

11
Meehan v. Kenneth H.green
cal · 1983 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013(See In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616, 620-621 [express findings not required under section 726]; In re John S. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 285, 292 [section 726 finding need not be in exact words of statute where the substance of such finding appears in the record]; In re Willy L. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 256, 266 [“such requisite finding may be inferred from the transcript”]; In re Ricardo M. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 744, 749-751 [where the necessary findings under section 726 are expressly or implicitly made by the court and supported by the evidence, the court may impose juvenile hall time as a cond

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Ricky H. green
cal · 1981
2 sentences

2013The mere specification in the petition of an alternative felony/misdemeanor offense as a felony has been held insufficient to show that the court made the decision and finding required by . . . section 702. [Citation.] Similarly, the setting of a felony-level maximum period of confinement has been held inadequate to comply with the mandate of . . . section 702. [Citation.] While the minutes of the dispositional hearing recited that the minor was committed to the Youth Authority ―for conviction of felony, to wit: Vio. 245a PC,‖ the transcript of the dispositional hearing . . . ―does not support

1997The mere specification in the petition of an alternative felony/misdemeanor offense as a felony has been held insufficient to show that the court made the decision and finding required by [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 702 [Citation.] Similarly, the setting of a felony-level maximum period of confinement has been held inadequate to comply with the mandate of [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 702 ( In re Dennis C . (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 16 , 23 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 496 ].) While the minutes of the dispositional hearing recited that the minor was committed to the Youth Authority *Page

21997–2013
In Re Cody W. green
calctapp · 1994
2 sentences

1996(In re Cody W. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 221 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 848 ]; see also In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885-886 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 763 ], and authority cited therein.) The transcript of the dispositional hearing reveals that this “bare-bones” plan was adopted at the urging of Carmen’s counsel and was consented to by all of the parties involved.

1996(In re Cody W. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 221 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 848 ]; see also In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885-886 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 763 ], and authority cited therein.) The transcript of the dispositional hearing reveals that this “bare-bones” plan was adopted at the urging of Carmen’s counsel and was consented to by all of the parties involved.

21996–1996

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 1170 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 7 (1981–2013) WV 6 (2001–2021) IN 2 (2006–2006) NC 2 (2004–2004) IL 2 (2020–2022) NY 2 (1994–1997)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check