In re Miguel H.
Filed 3/21/13 In re Miguel H. CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
In re MIGUEL H., a Person
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MIGUEL H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062108
(Super. Ct.
No. J224541)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Richard Monroy, Judge.
Affirmed.
In June
2010, Miguel H., who was a ward of the juvenile court, admitted he had violated
Penal Code section 211 (robbery). Seven
other theft-related counts were dismissed.
The court continued Miguel as a ward, placed him on probation with
standard enumerated terms and conditions, and committed him to a one-year
Breaking Cycles program.
In
September 2010, Miguel admitted he had violated two conditions of his
probation: wearing gang clothing and
violating his curfew. The court
continued the previous commitment to Breaking Cycles and required him to
complete 45 days of house arrest under an electronic
surveillance program. In December
2010, Miguel admitted violating three other conditions of probation. The court continued the disposition for three
months so it could evaluate how Miguel performed under the probation
department's highest level of supervision.
In March 2011, Miguel admitted six violations of probation
conditions. On the same day, the court
committed him to the Youthful Offender Unit for a maximum period of 480 days.
Miguel was
released from the unit on December
20, 2011. A week later he
was arrested for vandalism and charged with a probation violation: failure to obey all laws. At a contested evidentiary hearing, the court
found the allegation true based on the testimony of a restaurant manager who
identified Miguel as the individual who threw a brick through the front window
of the restaurant. The incident resulted
in $2,250 in damage to the window, a wall and a painting. The court continued Miguel on probation; reaffirmed
the previously ordered conditions of probation; required 45 days of house
supervision and imposed $2,250 in restitution as an additional condition of
probation.
DISCUSSION
Appointed
appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the relevant facts and
proceedings at the juvenile court.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court
review the record for error as mandated by
436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738, counsel refers to one possible, but not arguable issue: may a juvenile court impose restitution as a
condition of probation where the underlying finding arises from a probation
violation which requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond
a reasonable doubt?
We granted
Miguel 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 appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issue. Competent counsel has represented Miguel on
this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
AARON, J.
