In re R.V. CA5

Filed 6/1/21 In re R.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F081404

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJD071717)

v. OPINION R.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. John P. Bianco, Judge. Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Matthew Rodriquez, Acting Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Gezi and Julie A. Hokans, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION Appellant R.V., a minor who was born in 2004, admitted committing felony second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). He further admitted personally using a firearm in the commission of the crime (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). In May 2020, the juvenile court committed appellant to a long-term program of 24 months. The court set the maximum period of confinement at 16 years eight months. Appellant subsequently filed a petition seeking to modify the disposition to a shorter program. Appellant highlighted both his improved behavior while in custody and concerns surrounding the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The court denied the petition. Appellant raises two issues on appeal. We reject his claim the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying his petition to modify the disposition.1 However, we agree with the parties that appellant’s maximum period of confinement must be reduced by four months. We direct the court to amend the disposition in that regard. In all other respects, the orders appealed from are affirmed.

1 On July 7, 2020, appellant filed a notice of appeal. The following day, he filed his petition in the juvenile court seeking modification of the disposition. On July 28, 2020, the juvenile court heard and denied the motion to modify the disposition. On February 11, 2021, appellant filed in this court a motion to construe his notice of appeal as taken from the July 28, 2020, denial of his petition to reconsider the disposition. On February 22, 2021, this court granted that motion and we deemed the appeal, filed on July 7, 2020, to be taken from the July 28, 2020, denial of his petition to reconsider under Welfare and Institutions Code section 778.