In re Michael D.
Filed 3/15/07 In re Michael D. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re MICHAEL D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL D., Minor and Appellant. | D049142 (Super. Ct. No. J210560) |
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles Wickersham and Frances M. Devaney, Judges. Affirmed.
The juvenile court declared Michael D. a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602), after entering a true finding he committed felony vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)). The court placed him on probation, including a condition he pay $780.61 in victim restitution.
FACTS
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576), the following occurred. Around 4:30 p.m. on January 12, 2006, Jose Angulo saw Michael alight from a vehicle and walk toward Angulo's home. Seconds later, Angulo heard a bang and saw Michael running. Michael entered the waiting vehicle and left. Angulo went outside and saw the front and rear window of his pickup truck had been broken with a brick.
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 possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in ordering Michael to pay $780.61 in victim restitution; and (2) whether Michael can appeal the adjudication or the disposition.
We granted Michal 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 Michael on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court orders are affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
