In re Cody L.
Filed 10/13/06 In re Cody L.CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| In re CODY L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CODY L., Defendant and Appellant. | D047908 (Super. Ct. No. J208534) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, S. Charles Wickersham, Judge. Affirmed.
The juvenile court declared Cody L. a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after entering a true finding he committed vandalism causing more than $400 in damage. (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1).) The court placed Cody on probation including a condition he pay, jointly and severally with his accomplices, $21,300 restitution to the victim.
FACTS
On March 25, 2005, Cody and his companions went to Walter Saylor's property in the Ramona area and vandalized a number of cars, trailers and camper shells. At a restitution hearing, Saylor estimated the loss to be between $22,010 and $40,940 plus clean up costs; he testified his total loss to be $67,500. An expert witness called by Cody estimated Saylor's loss at $19,800 plus clean up costs. The court ordered Cody and his companions to pay $21,300 ¾ the loss estimated by the expert witness called by Cody plus $1,500 clean up costs.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible but not arguable issue whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of victim restitution.
We granted Cody permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Cody on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
