Opinion
F043044.
10-21-2003
In re MATTHEW U., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Matthew U., Defendant and Appellant.
Elizabeth M. Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Carlos A. Martinez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT
Matthew U. was charged with felony vandalism and giving a false name to the arresting officer. (Pen. Code, §§ 594, subd. (a); 148.9, subd. (a).) In court, Matthew admitted committing misdemeanor vandalism and the other charge was dismissed. The juvenile court adjudged Matthew a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), correctly calculated the maximum period of confinement as one year, imposed one year of probation, and ordered electronic monitoring, a restricted drivers license, 14 days on a community work service program, victim restitution as set by a probation officer reserving jurisdiction to resolve disputes, and other appropriate terms of probation. This appeal followed.
FACTS
According to the detention hearing memo and social study, on March 1, 2003, Matthew was seen in front of Edwards Theater pouring soap into a large fountain, which causes damage to the system. The property manager reported that it would cost at least $600 to repair the fountain. In court, Matthew admitted an allegation that he had damaged the fountain, "the damage being under $400."
DISCUSSION
Matthews appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief, which raised no issues and asked that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We invited Matthew to file a personal brief and he did so.
Matthew states that he is appealing "to set the record straight regarding property damage caused by putting detergent in a fountain." He contends that "no damage or repair expenses were, in fact, incurred" based on the fact that he has not been asked by the property owner for restitution for repair costs. He believes that the severity of his punishment was based, in part, on the report of property damage that "did not occur." He assumes he would have received a lesser punishment if the judge knew he had caused no property damage and asks this court to "decrease his punishment."
There are at least two flaws in Matthews argument. First, he admitted in court that he had committed misdemeanor vandalism and "otherwise destroyed [sic]" a River Park fountain, the damage being under $400. His admission establishes that fact on appeal and a statement to the contrary in his brief is without effect. An appellant cannot admit the sufficiency of the evidence by admitting an allegation and then question the evidence on appeal. (In re Troy Z. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1170, 1181.) Second, that the victim does not seek restitution (or has not done so yet) does not establish that there was, in fact, no property damage.
Our independent review of the record failed to disclose any reasonably arguable issues. A reasonably arguable issue is one that has "a reasonable potential for success" and one that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, will result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
The judgment is affirmed.