Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Kings County Super. Ct. No. 06CM4916. Lynn C. Atkinson, Judge.
Neil D. Chhabra, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
On January 22, 2007, a jury convicted appellant Gregory Wingfield of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b); count 1) and forgery (Pen. Code, § 476; count 2). In a separate proceeding, appellant admitted an allegation that he had suffered a “strike.” On February 21, 2007, the court imposed a prison term of four years, consisting of the two-year midterm on count 1, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(1); 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The court also imposed a four-year term on count 2, and stayed execution of that term pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
We use the term “strike” as a synonym for “prior felony conviction” within the meaning of the “three strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12), i.e., a prior felony conviction or juvenile adjudication that subjects a defendant to the increased punishment specified in the three strikes law.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
FACTS
Naami Mohammed testified to the following. He owns a liquor store, where appellant, a regular customer of the store, has cashed checks. On October 11, 2006, appellant presented a check at the store for cashing. Mohammed gave appellant $448.32 and subsequently attempted to deposit the check in his bank. However, the bank “rejected” the check.
The check was purportedly drawn on the account of Robinson’s Interiors. However, according the testimony of the Robinson’s Interiors payroll officer, it was not genuine.
City of Hanford Police Officer John Bidegaray testified he interviewed appellant on or about October 16, 2006, at which time appellant admitted that he cashed the check and that he knew it was “fake.”
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.