In re Mylicia G. CA4/1

Filed 2/15/23 In re Mylicia G. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re Mylicia G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D080891 THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM242239)

v.

MYLICIA G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rohanee Zapanta, Judge. Affirmed. John Derrick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In this case, 16-year-old Mylicia G. (the Minor) admitted committing a robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and admitted the use of a knife in the commission of the offense. The court committed the Minor to the Youthful Offender Unit Program for a period not to exceed 480 days. Thereafter, the court held a

restitution hearing at which the victim testified. The victim said the perpetrators, including the Minor, stole her phone valued at $290, $300 in cash, a wallet containing $25, and her food stamps. Her backpack was also damaged during the robbery. The victim calculated her losses at $642. The court ordered restitution in the amount requested. The order requires payment at the rate of $25 per month and is jointly payable by the Minor and the Minor’s parents. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal challenging only the restitution order. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered the Minor the opportunity to file the Minor’s own brief on appeal, but the Minor has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. Counsel has not complied with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) by identifying the possible issues that counsel considered in preparing this appeal. We disapprove of counsel’s failure to deal with Anders, however, in this case the appeal is narrow, and the pertinent record is brief. We have been able to review the record without counsel’s compliance with Anders. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented the Minor on this appeal.