Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LA054756 Kathryne A. Stoltz, Judge.
Jonathan B. Steiner and Ann Krausz, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EPSTEIN, P. J.
Kimberly Henderson appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which she was convicted of six counts of second degree burglary, counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12 (Pen. Code § 459), seven counts of petty theft with a prior, counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16 (Pen. Code § 666) and her admission that she served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). She was sentenced to prison for a total of six years, consisting of the middle term of two years for count 1, one-third the middle term or eight months for counts 3, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 16, with sentence stayed on the remaining counts. The enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) were stricken in the interest of justice, and appellant was ordered to pay actual restitution in the amount of $3,513.
The record establishes that on seven occasions from September 2006 through January 2007, appellant and companions entered Target stores in the San Fernando Valley with the intent to steal and took merchandise out of the store without paying for it. In some instances, appellant was seen by store employees committing the crimes and in other instances appellant’s actions were observed on surveillance tapes after she had already left the store. 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 March 4, 2008, 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 order 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: SUZUKAWA, J., WILLHITE, J.