In re R.C. CA6

Filed 12/10/13 In re R.C. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re R.C., a Person Coming H039459 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Superior Ct. No. JV39123)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal from the juvenile court's restitution order of February 11, 2013. Pursuant to that order, the juvenile court required R.C. and another minor to pay restitution in the amount of $19,970 to one of the victims of the burglary offenses that he, in conjunction with the other minor, committed. The juvenile court held R.C's parents and the other minor's parents jointly and severally liable for the debt. R.C. filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent R.C. in this court. Counsel has briefed no issues, but requests that we review the record of the proceedings. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel attests that R.C. was advised of his right to file a

supplemental brief in a timely manner. Furthermore, on July 23, 2013, we notified R.C. of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. R.C. has not filed a supplemental brief. We have examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende. For reasons set forth below, we agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's restitution order. On May 16, 2012, the juvenile court adjudged R.C. a ward of the court, and calculated his theoretical maximum term of confinement at three years, two months. The court placed R.C on probation on various terms and conditions.1 Subsequently, just three months later, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed another juvenile wardship petition in which it was alleged that R.C. and another minor had committed two residential burglaries. (Pen. Code, § 459-460, subd. (a).) On August 24, 2012, R.C. admitted that the allegations were true. The court continued R.C. on probation. However, the court set a hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be paid to the victims of the burglaries. The Restitution Hearing At the restitution hearing, Samira Sadeghi, who lived at one of the residences that R.C. admitted burglarizing, testified that jewelry was stolen from her home on August 6, 2012. Ms. Sadeghi stated that she did not have receipts from the jewelry because most of the pieces were gifts, some of which were purchased in Iran or Korea. A few of the pieces were purchased at Costco. Ms. Sadeghi fixed the value of the jewelry by either finding out from the purchasers of the pieces what they had paid for a particular piece or by conducting an Internet search for similar items.2