Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County S.Ct. No. JV33905
McAdams, J.
Defendant M.S. appeals from the juvenile court’s order of $300 in restitution to the Gilroy Unified School District. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. He has not done so.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we have reviewed the entire record, and we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Therefore, we will affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 11, 2008, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that on June 29, 2007, the minor, then 15 years of age, committed a first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459/460, subd. (a).) On February 4, 2008, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a second Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that on December 3, 2007, the minor committed vandalism causing less than $400 in damage by defacing the Rod Kelly Elementary School with graffiti. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)/(b)(2)(A).)
On March 27, 2008, the district attorney filed an amended petition alleging an attempted residential burglary on June 29, 2007. The minor admitted the attempted burglary and vandalism charges. He was granted deferred entry of judgment.
On October 2, 2008, the minor was deemed to have failed the deferred entry of judgment program, and the court sustained both petitions. On October 23, 2008, the court granted the minor probation on the condition, among others, that he pay restitution of $70.09 for damage to the residence caused by the attempted burglary, and $346 to the Gilroy Unified School District for damage to the Rod Kelley Elementary. The matter was set for a contested restitution hearing regarding a claim of $381.18 by the owner of a commercial building vandalized on December 5, 2007, and a claim of $300 by the Gilroy School District for damage repairs at Gilroy High School.
On December 11, 2008, the court heard arguments of counsel as to the contested restitution claims and took the matter under submission. The minors who admitted committing the acts of graffiti at the commercial building and at Gilroy High School completed the Restorative Justice Program without being held responsible for restitution. On January 8, 2009, the court ordered restitution to Gilroy Unified School District in the amount of $300. It did not order restitution to the owner of the commercial building.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
June 29, 2007 Residential Burglary
According to the police report, police were dispatched to an address on Carmel Street in Gilroy regarding an attempted burglary. A witness reported that five juveniles had left the scene, but the witness had been able to photograph one of the juveniles. The minor, M.S., is the person who was photographed by the witness. He was contacted by police and admitted that he attempted to break into the house.
December 3, 2007 Vandalism
According to the police report, on December 3, 2007, an anonymous caller to the police reported seeing graffiti on the sheds at Gilroy High School. A police officer went to the school and took photographs. She also found that another building on campus had been defaced by graffiti. Two days later, similar graffiti was found on a commercial building and on Rod Kelley Elementary School buildings. On December 7, 2007, the principal of a private school called police to report that he had reason to believe that one of his students, Z.S., was involved in the graffiti incident at the Rod Kelley School. Z.S. was interviewed at the principal’s office and admitted tagging at the Rod Kelley School; he also stated that a friend of his named “Joey” was responsible for the tagging at the high school. M.S.’s middle name is Joseph.
The next day, Z.S. was interviewed at his home by a different officer. Z.S. identified and initialed photographs of the graffiti tags he had done at the Rod Kelley School. Also present in the home were Z.S.’s mother, her boyfriend, Mike S., and Mike S.’s two teenage sons, M.S. (the minor here) and D.S. M.S. pointed out photos of tags at the Rod Kelley School, initialed and signed them, and admitted that he had done them. D.S. admitted tagging at Gilroy High School. He claimed that he acted alone. D.S. and Z.S. stated that there were about 10 members of the tagging crew NBK (“No Brow Krew”). Z.S. said that most of the members shave their eyebrows. M.S. said that his moniker was “Patches” due to the look of his eyebrows.
Gilroy Unified School District sent to the police cost estimates for the damage repairs at Rod Kelley Elementary and Gilroy High Schools. The estimate for repairs at the Rod Kelley School was $346. The estimate for the repairs at Gilroy High School was $300.
DISCUSSION
On June 24, 2009, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief in this court. This court sent a letter notifying defendant of his right to submit a written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. As noted earlier, defendant has not done so. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record on appeal. In our view, the court did not err in requiring defendant to pay an additional $300 to the Gilroy Unified School District, to repair graffiti damage at the high school caused by NBK, of which defendant was a member. “California courts have long interpreted the trial court’s discretion to encompass the ordering of restitution as a condition of probation even when the loss was not necessarily caused by the criminal conduct underlying the conviction. Under certain circumstances, restitution has been found proper where the loss was caused by related conduct not resulting in a conviction [citation], by conduct underlying dismissed and uncharged counts [citation], and by conduct resulting in an acquittal [citation].” (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121.) We therefore conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Mihara, Acting P.J., Duffy, J.