In re V.D.



















Filed 4/4/13 In re V.D. CA3















NOT TO BE PUBLISHED







>



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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----






>

In re V.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.D., Defendant and Appellant.	C071997 (Super. Ct. No. JV133683)

This appeal
comes to us pursuant to href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436.

On March 1, 2012, the People filed a
petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that
appellant V.D. failed to stop at the scene of an accident involving property
damage (count 1; Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)) and drove without a
license (count 2; Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)).

Appellant
subsequently admitted count 1, and count 2 was dismissed in the interest of
justice.

According
to the probation report, to which the parties stipulated as providing the factual
basis for appellant’s plea, on the night of September 12, 2011, a witness saw a
gray Toyota make a u-turn and sideswipe a parked car, causing damage. The witness advised the driver (appellant) to
stop and leave insurance information, but the driver sped away. The Toyota
was registered to appellant’s parents; he had driven it without
permission.

The
juvenile court placed appellant on six months’ court probation under the
probation department’s supervision pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section
725, subdivision (a).

At a later
hearing on victim restitution, the juvenile court ordered appellant to pay
restitution to the victim in the amount of $1,750, with appellant and his
parents made jointly and severally liable for the payment.

We appointed
counsel to represent defendant on
appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief
that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) Defendant was advised by counsel
of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing
of the opening brief. More than 30 days
elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the
entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition
more favorable to defendant.





Disposition

The judgment is
affirmed.







HULL , J.







We concur:







RAYE ,
P. J.







HOCH ,
J.