Filed 2/11/14 In re U.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

In re U.V., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

THE PEOPLE, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

U.V., 

Defendant and Appellant. 

F067761 

(Super. Ct. No. JW130859) 

OPINION

THE COURT*

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Peter A. 

Warmerdam, Referee. 

 Rex Adam Williams, 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 Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Detjen, J.
2 

INTRODUCTION 

On June 18, 2013, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 602 alleging that appellant, U.V., committed an assault with a deadly weapon 

(Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)).1 It was further alleged that appellant inflicted great 

bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Following a contested jurisdiction 

hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations true. 

On July 26, 2013, the juvenile court found the offense to be a felony, declared 

appellant a ward of the court, found a maximum term of confinement of seven years, and 

placed him on probation upon various terms and conditions including his commitment to 

the Crossroads Facility. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). 

FACTS 

At about 3:30 p.m. on June 12, 2013, A.G. and his girlfriend L. were in McFarland 

walking home from the bus when appellant approached them on foot. Appellant had 

been dating L., but they broke up in early June. As appellant passed them, he hit A.G. in 

the head with a metal pipe. A.G. blacked out. When A.G. regained consciousness, 

appellant was hitting him in the head with the pipe. A.G. was taken to the hospital where 

he received five staples in his head. 

When the police questioned appellant the next day, appellant admitted that he was 

upset because he saw L. dating someone new. Appellant admitted confronting A.G. and 

striking him in the head and upper body four to six times with a pipe. Appellant showed 

the investigating officers where he had hidden the pipe. 

 

1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
3 

APPELLATE COURT REVIEW 

 Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that 

summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the 

record independently. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) By letter on November 13, 2013, 

we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so. 

 After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no 

reasonably arguable legal or factual issues. 

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed.