In re Aaron P.
Filed 3/13/07 In re Aaron P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 AARON P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | C052709 |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AARON P., Defendant and Appellant. | (Super. Ct. No. JV114952) |
In March 2006 an Elk Grove police officer saw a car with two occupants weave from one side of the road to the other and pass through a stop sign without slowing or stopping. A records check revealed that the car was stolen. The car was stopped and the minor was advised of his Miranda[1]rights. He admitted that he obtained the car from a friend and drove it to the coparticipants house. The coparticipant admitted driving the car at the time of the traffic stop.[2]
A subsequent petition alleged that the minor drove or took the car (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a) -- count one) and received the stolen car (Pen. Code, 496d -- count two). The minor admitted count one as a misdemeanor, and count two was dismissed in the interest of justice. The minor was continued as a ward, committed to the youth center with execution of that order stayed, and released to the custody of his guardian.
Evidence at a contested restitution hearing showed that the victim tried to reclaim her car from a towing company, which refused to return it to her because she was unable to pay towing and storage fees. The victim provided a list of items lost along with the car. The minor was ordered to make restitution to the victim in the amount of $2,519.35 for the lost car and items.
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.
RAYE , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND, P.J.
NICHOLSON , J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
[1]Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694].
[2] Because the minor admitted the offense, our statement of facts is taken from the social study report.
