Filed 6/30/14 In re Michael 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 MICHAEL V., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F068420

(Super. Ct. No. JJD065599)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juliet L. 

Boccone, 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 Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Sarkisian, J.†

†

Judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
INTRODUCTION

On August 29, 2011, Michael V., appellant, admitted allegations in a petition 

filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that he committed 

first degree robbery, a felony (Pen. Code, § 211),

1 and that he was armed during the 

commission of the offense. In exchange for his admission, three other felony allegations 

were dismissed.

On September 15, 2011, appellant was found to be a ward of the court, placed on 

probation, and committed to the Tulare County Youth Correctional Center Unit.

2

 On 

September 9, 2013, a notice of violation of probation was filed pursuant to Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 777, alleging that appellant violated the terms of his probation 

by associating with a person he knew to be a member of a criminal street gang and by 

acquiring a new tattoo he knew to be gang related.

Appellant waived his right to a contested hearing and admitted violating the terms 

of his probation on September 10, 2013. At the disposition hearing on October 2, 2013, 

the juvenile court continued appellant as a ward of the court, continued his probation, and 

committed him to the Tulare Youth Correctional Unit for 365 days. The court 

determined that appellant’s maximum term of confinement was 10 years. The court 

found appellant had 449 days of custody credits.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436 (Wende).

 

1 Unless otherwise designated, statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 We will not recount the facts of the prior adjudication. A disposition order is an 

appealable order and failure to file a timely appeal from it bars review of the earlier 

proceedings it entails in a subsequent appeal from a later juvenile court hearing. (In re 

Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1139, 1141; also see In re Scott K. (1984) 156

Cal.App.3d 273, 276-278.) 
FACTS

Appellant originally admitted committing a robbery during a home invasion. 

After being released from the youth correctional center on August 7, 2012, appellant 

stayed with his grandmother and was placed on a global positioning system monitor on 

an aftercare program. Among the terms of probation were that appellant not associate 

with known gang members and not acquire tattoos or piercings appellant knew to be gang 

related.

While under the supervision of probation, appellant had eight law enforcements 

contacts where he was in the presence of known gang members or their associates. Law 

enforcement officers admonished appellant to stop these associations. Appellant 

acquired two tattoos that displayed “Porter” and “ville.” Law enforcement officers again 

admonished appellant to stop his involvement with known gang members and associates. 

Thereafter, appellant acquired a tattoo with the letter “N” on the right side of his face. 

Appellant was detained for being in violation of the terms of his probation. Appellant has 

three other tattoos. All three of his newest tattoos are gang related.

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 February 27, 2014, 

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.