In re Charles P. CA4/1 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/30/14 In re Charles P. CA4/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
    publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
    or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    In re CHARLES P., a Person Coming
    Under the Juvenile Court Law.
    D065142
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Super. Ct. No. J232115)
    v.
    CHARLES P.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O.
    Armour, Judge. Affirmed.
    Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    INTRODUCTION
    Minor appeals a juvenile court judgment directing him to pay victim restitution
    totaling $22,211. After independently reviewing the record for error (see People v.
    Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    , 441-442 (Wende)), we have not identified any reasonably
    arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.
    BACKGROUND
    Minor and an accomplice stole a 1996 BMW 328i, drove it through the gate of a
    school, drove it around the school recklessly, and then set it on fire. Minor admitted to
    committing two counts of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and one count
    of unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), in exchange
    for the dismissal of six other related charges.
    The juvenile court ordered minor placed in a juvenile probation camp program for
    up to 365 days. The court later ordered him to pay victim restitution of $5,696 to the car
    owner and $16,515 to the school. The restitution amounts were based on documents and
    testimony provided by the car owner and the school's risk management specialist.
    Specifically, the car owner testified and provided photographs showing that,
    although the car had been driven over 130,000 miles, it was in excellent condition when
    minor stole it. It had upgraded leather seats, stereo, tires, and rims.
    The car owner originally paid $12,000 for the car in 1998. After the car was
    destroyed, the owner searched appraisal reports for four months and found comparable
    2
    vehicles valued between $4,700 and $6,200. He purchased a replacement car that was
    seven years newer for $8,600.
    To testify at the restitution hearing, the car owner lost four hours of work. He was
    paid $61.45 an hour.
    The school's risk management specialist testified and provided documents
    showing the school paid $10,170 to a contractor to repair damaged stucco, $3,915.40 to a
    contractor to replace the damaged gate, and $2,430.58 for school employees to supervise
    the contractors and perform other related repair work.
    DISCUSSION
    Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings
    below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal and instead requested we
    independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 26 Cal.3d at
    pages 441-442. To assist our review, counsel identified several possible, but not
    reasonably arguable issues (see Anders v. California (1967) 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744). These
    issues were: (1) whether there was substantial evidence to support the restitution
    amounts, (2) whether the court abused its discretion in its valuation of the car; (3)
    whether the court abused its discretion in requiring restitution for amounts the school
    paid to salaried employees to repair damage caused by minor's conduct; and (4) whether
    the court violated minor's federal due process rights by admitting hearsay evidence at the
    restitution hearing (Anders issues).
    We granted minor an opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf. He did not do
    so.
    3
    Our independent review of the record, including the Anders issues identified by
    counsel, did not disclose any reasonably arguable appellate issue. Minor has been
    competently represented by counsel in this appeal.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    MCCONNELL, P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    HALLER, J.
    MCINTYRE, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D065142

Filed Date: 12/30/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021