In re I.S. CA4/1

Filed 7/13/23 In re I.S. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 I.S., A Person Coming Under the D081589 Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. J244230)

Plaintiff and Respondent

v.

I.S.,

Defendant and Appellant,

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

I.S. appeals after he admitted the truth of making a criminal threat against A.B., another minor, at school. The court ordered restitution to A.B.’s father, J.B., in the amount of $1,922.04 for missed work. I.S.’s court-

appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issue and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2021, I.S. displayed a knife to A.B. at their school. J.B. had A.B. stay home from school after the incident because A.B. was afraid. I.S. was charged in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition with two counts of making a criminal threat against two different minors (counts 1 and 2; Pen. Code,1 § 422), possessing a knife on school grounds (count 3; § 626.10, subd. (a)(1)), and misdemeanor exhibiting a weapon (count 4; § 417, subd. (a)(1)). I.S.’s counsel declared a doubt as to I.S.’s competency. (§ 1368.) The court authorized a competency evaluation. I.S.’s counsel later stipulated to I.S.’s competency and the court reinstated the proceeding. I.S. admitted count 1 with the agreement he would be made a ward of the court and should he successfully complete one-year of supervision, that count would be reduced to a misdemeanor. The court dismissed the remaining counts and continued the proceedings for a disposition hearing. At the disposition hearing, the court made I.S. a ward of the court and continued the proceedings for a restitution hearing. At a restitution hearing, J.B. requested four days of restitution for missed work while home with A.B. The People also requested J.B. be reimbursed for four hours of missed work to attend the restitution hearing. The court found that J.B.’s taking sick leave and time off to care for A.B. and attend the restitution hearing did not constitute a windfall and awarded A.B. $1,922.04 in restitution.