Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Super. Ct.No. FSB057029 Robert Lemkau, Judge.
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P.J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
On October 19, 2006, defendant pled guilty to two counts of lewd acts with a single child in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). In accordance with the negotiated disposition, the defendant was committed to state prison for 10 years, less custody credits.
On January 29, 2007, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County submitted a statement that $1,800 in victim restitution had been paid and requested that a hearing be set. The district attorney’s restitution statement indicated that the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board paid funds for the relocation costs of the minor victims in the case.
On July 25, 2007, over defense counsel’s objection and defendant’s request for a full hearing, the court imposed a restitution fine on defendant in the amount of $1,800. At that hearing, the People stated that “the relocation money [is to] be repaid to the Victim Compensation Board because the relocation of the victim and her family was as a direct result of the defendant’s criminal act. I would also argue that it is for the benefit of the victim’s mental health [that] she be relocated and that the defendant have no idea where she and her family reside because he will be getting out of prison in less than 10 years. [¶] It is for that reason that the People ask the restitution be ordered.” In making its ruling, the trial court stated that it “is denying the formal hearing on the grounds that it is not required by law and the Court is in fact imposing [a] specific Penal Code section 1202.4(f)(2) restitution amount of $1,800 to the Victim Compensation Board and the Department of Corrections is ordered to obtain said sum from the defendant during the period of his incarceration.”
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, J., MILLER, J.