In re Miguel H. CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the relevant facts and

proceedings at the juvenile court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks

that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25

2 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to one

possible, but not arguable issue: may a juvenile court impose restitution as a condition of

probation where the underlying finding arises from a probation violation which requires

proof by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

We granted Miguel permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not

responded.

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and

Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue referred to by

appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issue. Competent counsel has

represented Miguel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

AARON, J.

3