Filed 8/25/26 In re L.V. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re L.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, F091139
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 25CEJ600474-1)
v.
OPINION
L.V.,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly A.
Gaab, Judge.
Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Hill, P. J., Snauffer, J. and Sandhu, J.
INTRODUCTION
L.V., a minor, admitted one count of second degree robbery. He was adjudged a
dependent of the juvenile court and placed on the juvenile global positioning system
(GPS) monitoring program subject to certain terms and conditions.
In this appeal from the disposition hearing, L.V.’s appellate counsel filed a brief
that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this
court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) L.V.
has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
FACTS1
L.V. was one of several suspects who robbed four minor victims. One suspect
pulled a knife, and L.V. and the others took property from the victims. Some of the
property was later recovered.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 6, 2025, a juvenile wardship petition was filed in the Fresno County
Superior Court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,2 that alleged L.V.
committed counts 1–4, robbery of four different victims on or about October 1, 2025
(Pen. Code, § 211). The prosecutor declared L.V. was ineligible for juvenile deferred
entry of judgment.
Detention Hearing
On October 7, 2025, L.V. appeared in the juvenile court with his attorney and his
mother for the detention hearing. L.V. denied the petition’s allegations.
The juvenile court denied L.V.’s motion to be released on a GPS monitor, and
ordered him to remain detained pending the jurisdiction hearing.
1 The facts are from the statements of the prosecutor and defense counsel at the
arraignment.
2 All further citations to section 602 are to the statute in the Welfare and Institutions
Code unless otherwise noted.
2.
The juvenile court found a prima facie case that L.V. was a minor described by
section 602. The court temporarily placed L.V. under the care, custody, and control of
the probation department. The court found reasonable efforts had been made to prevent
the removal from home, but L.V.’s parent or guardian did not appear to be exercising the
necessary care and control to keep L.V. from involvement in delinquent behavior based
upon L.V.’s involvement in the current offense or for one or more of the following
reasons: it was a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the care and protection of
L.V., and it was reasonably necessary for the protection of the person or property of
another.
Jurisdiction Hearing
On October 15, 2025, the juvenile court conducted the jurisdiction hearing. L.V.
again requested release on a GPS monitor. The court granted the request.
The juvenile court released L.V. to his parents on the GPS monitor, and ordered
L.V. to report to the GPS probation officer, not to associate with the victims or the other
suspects unless necessary at school, and not to use force or violence except in lawful
self-defense. The court set a review hearing.
On November 10, 2025, the juvenile court conducted the review hearing and
found L.V. was in full compliance with his GPS release.
L.V.’s Admission
On December 8, 2025, L.V. admitted the first count alleged in the petition for
second degree robbery, and the juvenile court granted the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss
the other allegations. L.V. was advised that his maximum possible confinement was
three years.
L.V. moved to terminate his GPS monitoring since he had complied with the
terms. The juvenile court found L.V. continued to comply and granted his motion to
terminate GPS monitoring. L.V. was released to his parents on supervised home
3.
detention, and the court advised him that he could not go anywhere without an adult’s
supervision.
Disposition Hearing
On January 14, 2026, the juvenile court conducted the disposition hearing. The
prosecutor requested a custodial placement because L.V. committed a serious offense.
L.V.’s counsel objected because none of the victims were injured, L.V. did not use a
weapon, this was his first petition, he had complied with the court’s order, he had good
attendance in school, and the parents said he was doing well at home.
L.V.’s counsel objected to the recommendation for a nonappearance review
hearing and argued it was not necessary. The juvenile court stated that it had jurisdiction
to set review hearings.
The juvenile court stated L.V. had 69 days of credits, and his maximum period of
confinement was three years.
The juvenile court adjudged L.V. as a ward of the court and temporarily removed
him from the custody of his parents or guardians and placed him under the supervision of
the probation department until January 14, 2027. The court vacated the previous order
for supervised home detention. It ordered L.V. committed to the juvenile GPS
monitoring program for 60 days pursuant to certain terms and conditions, including to
stay away from both of the victims and the other perpetrators of the robberies, perform
40 hours of community service, report to the probation officer that same day for
placement of the GPS device, and attend psychological counseling, anger management,
and substance abuse treatment and counseling.
The juvenile court set a 30-day GPS review hearing for February 17, 2026, and a
nonappearance review for November 16, 2026.
On February 5, 2026, L.V. filed a timely notice of appeal.
4.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, L.V.’s appellate counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. (See
In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 118–119 [Wende procedures apply to a
minor’s appeal from the judgment in a juvenile delinquency proceeding].) The brief also
included counsel’s declaration indicating that L.V. was advised he could file his own
brief with this court. By letter on May 27, 2026, we invited L.V. to submit additional
briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable
factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
5.
