Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J213611. Federico Castro and Ronald L. Johnson, Judges. (Retired Judges of the San Diego S.Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
McDONALD, J.
Fifteen-year-old Mauricio S. entered a negotiated admission to one count of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460). The juvenile court declared Mauricio a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), and ordered him to serve 45 days on home supervision, perform 50 hours of community service work and pay restitution. Mauricio appeals. We affirm.
FACTS
On August 24, 2006, Mauricio and two friends ditched school and later decided to burglarize some houses. Mauricio was aware that one of his friends was carrying a .45 caliber replica pistol in his waistband. The trio entered a house through a window. When the youths heard a noise from upstairs, they fled. O. Walcott, 82, was in the residence at the time.
On January 23, 2007, Mauricio admitted the allegation that he committed a residential burglary. The court directed the probation department to evaluate Mauricio for a deferred entry of judgment. The court ordered Mauricio to observe a 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. curfew.
On February 14 the court followed the probation department's recommendation and denied Mauricio's motion for treatment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 790 (deferred entry of judgment). The court declared Mauricio a ward of the court and ordered him to spend 45 days on home supervision and perform 50 hours of community service. The court found Mauricio and his parents were jointly and severally responsible for the payment of restitution.
A restitution hearing was set for April 27. The burglary victim, K. Pickett, claimed that his $6,500 Rolex watch was taken during the burglary and sought restitution. Pickett had not reported the watch missing when interviewed for the police report. Pickett did not have a receipt for the watch, explaining it was a gift. Shortly before the April 27 hearing, Mauricio's family and Pickett agreed that Pickett would receive $3,500 in restitution from the family. The court formally set the restitution at $3,500.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. 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 refers to a possible, but not arguable issue: whether trial counsel's entry into a stipulation for the restitution under the circumstances constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
We granted Mauricio 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 issue referred to by appellant's counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Mauricio on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., HALLER, J.