Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Super. Ct. Nos. F06907285 & F07901898 Houry A. Sanderson, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Harris, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Dawson, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant, Ellen Ruth Bratton, pled no contest in case No. F06907285 on February 5, 2007, to one count in a criminal complaint of theft from an elder or dependent adult, her grandfather (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (d), count one). The trial court obtained a waiver of Bratton’s Boykin/Tahl rights in open court. Bratton signed a felony advisement, waiver of rights, and plea form acknowledging her constitutional rights as well as the consequences of her plea. Bratton acknowledged committing the offense on page two of the advisement of rights form. Bratton pled no contest to count one. The court found a factual basis for her plea. The court granted the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss a grand theft allegation (§ 487, subd. (a)).
Unless otherwise specified, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 (Boykin/Tahl).
On March 8, 2007, the prosecutor filed a new complaint in case No. F07901898 alleging felony counts of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a), count one), acquisition of access card account information (§ 484e, subd. (d), count two), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a), counts 3 & 4). On March 21, 2007, Bratton entered into a plea agreement in which she would not be sentenced to prison in return for her admission of count three. Bratton again signed a felony advisement, waiver of rights, and plea form acknowledging her constitutional rights as well as the consequences of her plea. The court advised Bratton of her constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl and informed Bratton of the consequences of her plea. Bratton pled guilty to count three and the court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the remaining allegations.
On May 14, 2007, the trial court sentenced Bratton to probation for three years. Among the conditions of probation were that Bratton make restitution to her grandfather in the amount of $8,398 and serve 365 days in county jail with credit for time already served. Other conditions of probation included that Bratton submit to a search by law enforcement or probation officers without a warrant, seek gainful employment, complete educational or vocational training, and not knowingly possess stolen property. The court imposed a restitution fine.
Bratton’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Bratton was advised she could file her own brief with this court. By letter on October 18, 2007, we invited Bratton to submit additional briefing. To date, she has not done so.
FACTS
Case No. F06907285
On February 4, 2006, Ellen Bratton had been living with her 94-year-old grandfather, Clarence Bratton, since May 2005. Bratton would assist her grandfather with housework and would pay some of his bills. Bratton’s grandfather had a regular caretaker and Bratton’s assistance to him was sporadic. At the end of January 2006, Mr. Bratton noticed he had not received a bank statement from his checking account for two months and asked Bratton about it. Bratton told him she did not know anything about his statements.
The bank informed Mr. Bratton the statements had been mailed. The bank further discovered ten checks had been processed that appeared to be either forged, counterfeit, or both. All of the questioned checks had been made out to Ellen Bratton for large sums of money. The same day Mr. Bratton went to the bank, Bratton moved out of the house. Mr. Bratton had financially assisted his granddaughter in the past, but had never given her permission to write herself checks from his account. Mr. Bratton told investigators that $8,398 had been stolen from his account.
Investigators found that the ten checks that appeared to be forged were made out to Ellen Bratton for various amounts. The forgeries were made between December 2005 and February 2006. Bratton used her grandfather’s first initial, as he did, and added a shakiness to the signatures themselves to match her grandfather’s writing. All the suspect checks were endorsed by Bratton. Bank employees were able to furnish investigators with video and still pictures of Bratton cashing the checks. When confronted by investigators, Bratton admitted that she took the checks from her grandfather, forged her grandfather’s signature, and then cashed the checks. Bratton told investigators that she knew she would probably be caught and that she spent the money on performance products for her car.
Case No. F07901898
Clovis police officers questioned Bratton on March 6, 2007, concerning forged money orders she had in her possession. During the questioning, it became clear to the officers that Bratton was not answering their questions honestly. The officers went to Bratton’s residence where they met her boyfriend, Shawn Briggs, and a roommate. Briggs was cooperative and let the officers borrow the hard drive from his computer for forensic examination. During a search, the officers found a wallet belonging to Brandon McGee in a drawer filled with a woman’s clothing. Bratton told the officers that Jacob McGee had left the wallet there a few days earlier. She later changed her story and said that Brandon McGee left the wallet.
When they contacted Brandon McGee by phone, the officers learned no one had permission to be in possession of his wallet and that he had lost it five or six months earlier. McGee did not know Bratton.
DISCUSSION
We initially note that Bratton failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause. We therefore cannot review any potential infirmities concerning the validity of the underlying no contest and guilty pleas. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68.)
The trial court denied Bratton’s request for a certificate of probable cause on June 21, 2007.
A guilty plea is, for most purposes, the legal equivalent of a jury’s guilty verdict. (People v. Valladoli (1996) 13 Cal.4th 590, 601.) A guilty plea serves as a stipulation that the People need not introduce proof to support the accusation. The plea ipso facto supplies both evidence and verdict and is deemed to constitute an admission of every element of the charged offense. (People v. Alfaro (1986) 42 Cal.3d 627, 636 [overruled on another ground in People v. Guerrero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 343]; People v. Chadd (1981) 28 Cal.3d 739, 748.) A plea of nolo contendere (or no contest) is legally equivalent to a guilty plea and also constitutes an admission of every element of the offense to which the defendant pleads. (People v. Warburton (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 815, 820-821.) Bratton cannot attack the factual basis for her pleas.
Furthermore, we find no errors in the trial court’s advisement of rights and of the consequences of a change of plea in either case. Bratton was advised of her Boykin/Tahl rights and the court established a factual basis for her pleas. The terms of probation appear reasonable and to be directed toward Bratton’s rehabilitation.
After independent review of the record, we conclude there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.