Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCN237159, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge.
McINTYRE, J.
Jim L. Farley entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; all further statutory references are to this code). In exchange, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining charges—unlawful use of personal identifying information of another (§ 530.5, subd. (a)) and passing a fictitious check (§ 476)—and two prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The parties also agreed to a stipulated sentence of 16 months, which the trial court imposed.
At a subsequent restitution hearing, the court ordered Farley to pay the victim a total of $3,000 in restitution.
FACTS
On the morning of June 18, 2007, Robert Rand discovered his truck had been burglarized. Rand, who owns a home entertainment installation business, had business documents and supplies in the truck that were stolen.
On June 28 someone cashed a check at Pauma Casino using Rand's banking information. Wells Fargo Bank notified Rand on July 1 that his account was overdrawn by $2,000.
On July 6 Farley attempted to cash a counterfeit check for $1,000 at Valley View Casino. While the casino cashier was contacting Wells Fargo Bank, Farley fled but later was apprehended by police. The casino cashier identified Farley in a photographic lineup.
On December 2, 2008, Rand appeared at Farley's sentencing and recognized him as a man he had seen on the night of the vehicle burglary; the man was standing under street lights near a neighbor's house about four houses away.
At the subsequent restitution hearing, Rand testified the business equipment and supplies stolen from his truck were worth at least $1,500. Rand, who charges his customers $150 an hour, also testified that the he spent at least 20 hours working with his bank to close accounts and open new ones, and this was time that he would have been working had the truck burglary not occurred. Rand said he would be satisfied if he was reimbursed for 10 hours of work time lost.
Noting that Farley's plea bargain had a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754) as well as an acknowledgement of the requirement to pay full restitution to all victims, the court awarded Rand $1,500 in restitution for the loss of property and $1,500 in restitution for the lost income, which the court called "opportunity cost."
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in awarding restitution for Rand's opportunity cost without Rand specifically identifying which job(s) he was unable to do because of the time he spent dealing with his bank accounts; (2) whether there was an adequate factual basis for the restitution award for Rand's stolen property; and (3) whether the Harvey waiver initialed by Farley on his plea form allowed the court to impose restitution for losses directly attributable to an unfiled but transactionally related charge.
We granted Farley 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 issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Farley has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., HALLER, J.