Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. DL036279-001 John C. Gastelum, Judge.
Rex Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
IKOLA, J.
The People petitioned the court to declare the minor, Enrique A. (minor), a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The People alleged misdemeanor vandalism causing damage of $400 or more (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, § 240). Following a bench trial, the court sustained the allegations of the petition beyond a reasonable doubt, but found the proved damages were less than $400. (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A).) The court found both counts to be misdemeanors with a maximum term of confinement of one year and two months, declared minor a ward of the court, committed minor to juvenile hall for 30 days, but stayed the commitment pending successful completion of probation on stated terms and conditions including restitution and 15 days of a community work program.
Minor appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on minor’s behalf. Counsel requested we conduct an independent review of the entire record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Minor was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have not received any communication from minor.
Upon our independent review, we agree with counsel’s assessment of this case. There are no arguable issues. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
On January 2, 2010, at about 1:20 a.m., a security guard for the La Ola restaurant in Santa Ana checked the restroom and saw minor marking the door on the toilet stall with a blue marker. When minor closed the marker and tried to leave, the security guard grabbed him. A scuffle ensued, with the minor pushing the security guard, but the security guard managed to handcuff minor to a railing outside the restaurant. Blue markings were later found on the cushions and table where minor had been sitting before entering the restroom. There had been no markings on the cushions, table, or bathroom stall before minor had entered the restaurant.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record and are unable to find any arguable issue on appeal. The evidence recited above is manifestly sufficient to support the judgment. The security guard saw minor defacing property which he did not own with graffiti. And the security guard also testified that minor physically assaulted him. Finally, the terms and conditions of minor’s probation were appropriate and not overbroad.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., FYBEL, J.