Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC068321A
SIMONS, J.
Defendant Sandra Remitta Hawthorne pled no contest to one count of petty theft with priors (Pen. Code, § 666) and was sentenced to four years in state prison. Defendant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
In March 2011, defendant was charged by amended information with one count of petty theft with priors (§ 666). The information also alleged she served five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and suffered seven previous felony convictions for purposes of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4).
Section 1203, subdivision (e)(4) provides that, except in unusual cases, probation shall not be granted to a person who has two prior felony convictions.
The transcript of the preliminary hearing indicates that the charge against defendant was based on the theft of $585 in merchandise from a department store in Daly City. A loss prevention agent testified he observed defendant place various items of jewelry in her shopping bag and proceed to the exit without paying for the merchandise.
Defendant pled no contest and admitted the prior prison term allegations, with the understanding that she would be sentenced to four years in state prison. The trial court imposed the middle term of two years for the violation of section 666, plus consecutive one-year terms for two of the prison priors. The court stated it was “staying the sentence” on the three other prison priors based on the negotiated plea. The minute order of the sentencing hearing states those other enhancements were “stayed/stricken, ” and those three enhancements are not listed on the abstract of judgment.
This appeal followed. Defendant’s notice of appeal specified the appeal was “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.”
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. Defendant was adequately represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings. Defendant completed a plea form that described the constitutional rights she was waiving by entering a plea of guilty, the trial court went over those rights with defendant, and the court found defendant knowingly, intelligently, and freely waived those rights. Defendant pled no contest to count 1 and admitted the prison priors, and the trial court found the plea was free and voluntary. Defense counsel stated there was a factual basis for the plea based on “the preliminary hearing transcript, and my review of the police reports, and loss prevention report.”
The trial court’s sentence was as provided for in the plea agreement. Although the trial court stated it was “staying” the three other prior prison term enhancements, it appears from the minutes and abstract of judgment that those enhancements were in fact stricken, which was proper. (See People v. Bradley (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 386, 391 [“The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally unauthorized sentence subject to correction for the first time on appeal. [Citations.]”].) The restitution fines imposed by the court were proper.
Appellate counsel advised defendant of her right to file a supplementary brief to bring to the court’s attention any issue she believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Defendant did not file a supplementary brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur. JONES, P.J., NEEDHAM, J.