Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. J220665 Dwayne K. Moring, Judge.
McCONNELL, P. J.
The juvenile court adjudged C.F. a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 based on a true finding that he committed robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) The court struck counts of grand theft from a person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)), and battery (Pen. Code, § 242), and granted C.F. probation. The court also ordered restitution fines in the amounts of $119 (§ 730.5) and $100 (§ 730.6), and restitution to the victim in the amount of $193.94. C.F. appeals. We affirm the judgment.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
FACTS
Alex A. was sitting on a curb in his neighborhood, eating doughnuts, when C.F. and two other minors approached him from behind. C.F. stated, "Give me your [skate]board." C.F. then hit Alex in the lower jaw and took his skateboard. Alex fell, stood up, and yelled at the minors to give him his skateboard back. C.F. asked for money, and Alex replied that he did not have any. C.F. then hit Alex again, and the minors fled. Alex ran after the minors, and flagged down a motorist who called the police.
Alex did not know any of the minors at the time of the incident. When high school started a couple weeks later, Alex saw C.F. and followed him to class. Alex then went to the office to report what happened, and identified C.F. in a yearbook. When he returned home, he called the detective investigating his case. The skateboard was never recovered, and C.F. denied involvement in the offense.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. 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 lists, as possible but not arguable issues, whether: (1) there was sufficient evidence to sustain a true finding; (2) the condition of probation that C.F. subject himself to search and seizure at any time was overbroad and unconstitutional; and (3) the court's implicit finding that C.F. was financially able to pay the restitution fines was in error.
We granted C.F. permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. C.F. has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, J., HALLER, J.