The opinion of the court was delivered by: Siggins, J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Yossuf Callen appeals from a judgment and sentence after the court reinstated his probation and imposed a restitution order. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, in order to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We find there are none and affirm.
In 2007, defendant pleaded no contest to a charge of felony identity theft. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for five years.
In 2008, the People filed three petitions to revoke defendant's probation, alleging burglary, receipt of stolen property, possession of burglar's tools, and drug possession. Each time defendant admitted the violation and was reinstated on probation with various conditions, including that he serve a total of 19 months in county jail.
In April 2009, defendant was arrested after he gave his landlord a counterfeit check for back rent in the amount of $4,980. The People filed another petition to revoke probation, alleging defendant had committed forgery. Defendant admitted the probation violation and his probation was again reinstated on the condition that he serve an additional nine months in jail and make restitution. The amount of restitution was reserved for future determination. After a hearing on that issue, the court ordered defendant to pay his landlord $4,980 in restitution at a rate of $50 per month. The court reserved the right to order additional restitution in the event other losses were reported.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Defendant's counsel has represented that he advised defendant of his intention to file a Wende brief in this case and of defendant's right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. Defendant has not done so. Defendant has also been advised of his right to request that counsel be relieved. This court has reviewed the entire record on appeal. No issue requires further briefing.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Pollak, Acting P.J. ...