(Super. Ct. No. JV130930)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte, J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On the afternoon of January 5, 2010, 16-year-old minor S.C. and another juvenile knocked on the door of a Sacramento residence.*fn1 Although the victim was present, he did not answer the door. Shortly thereafter, the victim saw a juvenile place a call on his cellular telephone and heard him say, "'Nobody is home, come on over.'" The victim telephoned the police and, as he spoke, he saw the juveniles and a third suspect in his backyard. The juveniles placed tape on a window pane of a French door, scratched the pane, and damaged two door locks. When the juveniles saw the victim looking at them from inside the residence, they fled.
The door needed to be replaced. The victim hired a babysitter, made numerous telephone calls, accompanied the police during the investigation, and made several court appearances.
The minor admitted an allegation that he attempted to enter an inhabited dwelling with the intent to commit larceny. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 664.) He was placed on probation pursuant to the deferred entry of judgment provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 790. The minor was ordered to perform 24 hours of community service, serve 65 days of home supervision with credit for 65 days, and make restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined.
Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court ordered the minor and his coparticipants to pay $816 in victim restitution.
We appointed counsel to represent the minor 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 (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The minor 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 the minor. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HULL, Acting P. J. ...