Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J224817 Carolyn Caietti, Judge.
McINTYRE, J.
The juvenile court declared 13-year-old Katherine G. a ward of the court after it found true an allegation that she committed petty theft. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The juvenile court placed Katherine with her parents and ordered her to pay a victim restitution fine in the amount of $8.
FACTS
On July 29, 2009, 13-year-old Jazmin F. sold snacks at Castle Park Middle School as a fundraiser for school events. Katherine asked Jazmin whether she "[Could] get some food?" Jazmin replied sarcastically, "Sure, why not." Katherine then grabbed a handful of gummy bears and other items, and left. Although Jazmin yelled at Katherine to "come back, " she continued to walk away.
Katherine admitted taking some food but believed Jazmin had been serious when Jazmin told her that she could have the items. Katherine claimed that she did not hear anyone yelling at her. Although she did not believe that she had stolen the food, she admitted speaking to a police officer after the incident and telling the officer "that stealing food was bad and that I should have paid for it."
The People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that Katherine had committed petty theft. The juvenile court found true the allegation, and Katherine later objected to the recommended victim restitution amount. At a special hearing regarding restitution, Katherine valued the food at $0.35. After considering the declaration of a school representative, the juvenile court ordered restitution of $8.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. She presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, she listed as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Katherine had a constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses at the restitution hearing; and (2) whether sufficient evidence supported the victim restitution order. We granted Katherine permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded.
Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Katherine on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., AARON, J.