target="A138052_files/props0002.xml">
In re K.M.
Filed 7/9/13 In
re K.M. CA1/1
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
In re K.M.,
a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
K.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A138052
(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J0901104)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION
Defendant
K.M. appeals from a restitution order requiring him to pay $1,150 to the owner
of a car defendant was found to have stolen.
His appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief pursuant to
for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly).) Counsel has averred defendant has been
informed of his right to file a
supplemental brief. We have received
no such brief.
We
summarize only the facts and procedural background relevant to review of the
restitution order. On September 24,
2012, the juvenile court sustained allegations that defendant stole a car (a
felony, Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), possessed a firearm (a felony, Pen.
Code, § 29610), evaded a police officer (a felony, Veh. Code, § 2800.2,
subd. (a)), and resisted arrest (a misdemeanor, Pen. Code, § 148, subd.
(a)(1)). A photograph introduced at the
front driver’s side of the car, an Acura.
The report prepared for the disposition hearing stated the owner of the
car had advised the police officers of damage to the sound system and that it cost
him $370 to retrieve the car from a tow yard.
The owner subsequently completed a victim claim form and description of
the loss, identifying the following: two
stereo amplifiers ($300), two speakers ($200), speaker damage ($80), all car
locks ($100), driver’s side door ($100), and road service ($370), totaling
$1,150. He also submitted a receipt for
the road service.
At
the restitution hearing, defense counsel
did not take issue with the claim for road service, but questioned the other
amounts. He did not disagree they could
be reasonable amounts, but claimed there should be more documentation “of a
reliable sort.†The court found the
amount claimed “very reasonable†given the damage to the car.
Having
reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende and Kelly, we agree
no arguable issue exists on appeal. Defendant was ably
represented by counsel during the restitution proceedings, and the court’s
restitution order is amply supported by the record.
We
therefore affirm the juvenile court’s restitution order.
_________________________
Banke,
J.
We concur:
_________________________
Margulies, Acting P. J.
_________________________
Dondero, J.
opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section
8.1, subdivisions (1) and (3).
