Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. YA070158, Hector M. Guzman, Judge.
David D. Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Alshonda Jatrice Jordan appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which she was convicted in count 1 of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and in count 2 of grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). She was sentenced to prison for the low term of 16 months for count 1 and the sentence for count 2 was ordered stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
The evidence at trial established that on December 10, 2007, appellant and codefendant Richards entered the Macy’s store on Hawthorne Boulevard in Redondo Beach intending to obtain merchandise without paying for it. After selecting merchandise, appellant and Richards went to the cash register of codefendant Pitts. Pitts scanned some of the items but not others and charged less than the actual price for other merchandise. The items were placed in shopping bags and, when appellant exited the store with the merchandise, she was detained. Regarding the items that were scanned, the register receipt indicated appellant had paid $41.35 for items with a total actual price of $328.42. The total price of the unscanned items was $1,220.50. Appellant had paid for seven items and had not paid for 21 items.
On September 21, 2009, the judgment against codefendant Shonta Latrice Richards was affirmed on appeal in case number B211014.
The court concluded, pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.03, that a just disposition of the case required such diagnosis and treatment services as provided at a diagnostic facility of the Department of Corrections and ordered appellant be placed in such facility for a period not to exceed 90 days. Thereafter, the diagnostic report recommended that appellant be sentenced to prison.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On June 29, 2009, we advised appellant that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against her in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P.J., WILLHITE, J.