In re Trevon H.
Filed 4/3/13 In re Trevon 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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 TREVON H., a Person
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TREVON H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062924
(Super. Ct.
No. J231469)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Browder A. Willis III, Judge. Affirmed.
Trevon H.
entered a negotiated admission to having committed two residential burglaries
(Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460; counts 1 and 3).
The court declared him a ward and committed him to the Breaking Cycles
Short Term Offender Program for a period not to exceed 90 days. Trevon appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In February
2012, Trevon burglarized Mr. A.'s home (count 3). In May, Trevon burglarized Ms. K.'s home
(count 1).
Mr. A.
requested restitution of $7,549 for property taken and damaged during the
burglary. Trevon's counsel did not
contest the amount of the claim, and the court ordered Trevon to pay
restitution in that amount.
Ms. K.
initially requested restitution of $2,180 for property taken and damaged during
the burglary. At the restitution
hearing, she increased her request to $3,044.80. Trevon's counsel argued that the appropriate
amount of restitution was $2,750.27. In
rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that the restitution order should be $15.13
more than that amount, and Trevon's counsel conceded the point. The court ordered Trevon to pay Ms. K.
$2,765.40.
The court
also ordered Trevon to pay $897.06 in restitution to the victim in another
dismissed with a Harvey
for a window broken during one of the burglaries.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate
counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal,
but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738 (Anders), counsel lists, as a
possible, but not arguable, issue:
whether the court ordered the appropriate restitution.
We granted
Trevon permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to
arguable appellate issue. Trevon has
been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, Acting P.
J.
O'ROURKE, J.
