Fear Not Law Articles: In re S.S.

In re S.S.

Filed 5/25/10 In re S.S. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

In re S.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

S.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C062261

(Super. Ct. No. JV128231)

In In re S.S., case No. C061503, an unpublished opinion filed on March 24, 2010, we affirmed the juvenile courts judgment declaring the minor, S.S., a ward and granting probation, after finding that the minor committed a battery upon the victim on November 13, 2008. (Pen. Code, 242; Welf. & Inst. Code, 602.)

After the notice of appeal in that case had been filed, the juvenile court conducted a restitution hearing. Based on testimony by the victim that his glasses had been damaged during the battery and that they had cost $119, the juvenile court awarded the victim $119, and made the minors parents jointly and severally liable therefor. The minor filed a timely notice of appeal from the restitution order.

We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. After we filed an order striking the original briefs because they duplicated the issues raised in the earlier appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from the minor. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor.

DISPOSITION

The restitution order is affirmed.

NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

We concur:

RAYE , J.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

Description	In In re S.S., case No. C061503, an unpublished opinion filed on March 24, 2010, we affirmed the juvenile courts judgment declaring the minor, S.S., a ward and granting probation, after finding that the minor committed a battery upon the victim on November 13, 2008. (Pen. Code, 242; Welf. & Inst. Code, 602.) After the notice of appeal in that case had been filed, the juvenile court conducted a restitution hearing. Based on testimony by the victim that his glasses had been damaged during the battery and that they had cost $119, the juvenile court awarded the victim $119, and made the minors parents jointly and severally liable therefor. The minor filed a timely notice of appeal from the restitution order. We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. After we filed an order striking the original briefs because they duplicated the issues raised in the earlier appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from the minor. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.