In re Nancy G.

Filed 2/21/07  In re Nancy G. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

     In November 2004, the 17-year-old minor Nancy G. drove a friend's car although she had no driver's license.  She lost control of the car when she tried to change lanes at about 40 miles per hour.  The car collided with victim T.V.'s car, then spun around and collided with victim C.V.'s pickup truck. 

     In February 2005, a petition was filed alleging that the minor was within Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that she drove without a valid driver's license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a); count one) and unlawfully turned a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 22107; count two).  The minor admitted count one, and count two was dismissed with a Harvey^[1] waiver.  Her admission was held in abeyance pending successful completion of a program of supervision.  The minor's counsel stipulated that she would be adjudged a ward if restitution were not paid. 

     In June 2005, following a contested restitution hearing, the minor was ordered to make restitution to C.V. in the amount of $4,152.67.  In March 2006, the probation department reported that the minor had not provided proof of community service and had paid nothing toward her restitution.  The court accepted the minor's admission of the charge and adjudged her a ward of the court. 

     In July 2006, the minor filed a petition to modify the restitution order.  (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 778.)  She argued that restitution should be set at zero, because the insurer of the car she had been driving had fully compensated the victim for his damages.  The juvenile court received points and authorities, heard argument including the prosecutor's stated lack of opposition to the motion, and ruled that the minor still owed the restitution. 

     We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal.  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.  (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 judgment is affirmed.

                                          NICHOLSON      , J.

We concur:

          SCOTLAND       , P.J.

          RAYE           , J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

^[1]    People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.