Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIF147289, James T. Warren, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI J.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Suzanne Kessler pled guilty to two counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); counts 1 and 3) and three counts of issuing checks on insufficient funds (Pen. Code, § 467a; counts 16, 17, and 18). Defendant also admitted that in the commission of count 3 she took money in a value exceeding $150,000 (Pen. Code, § 12022.6, subd. (a)(2)). In exchange, the remaining allegations were dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to the stipulated term of three years four months in state prison with credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment, challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background is taken from the preliminary hearing transcript.
83-year-old Robert Hart had known defendant for about five or six years, and both lived in the gated community of Canyon Lake. In November 2005, defendant asked Hart to loan her $250,000 to purchase an apartment complex in which her children resided, near the beach. She explained to Hart that she could purchase the apartment for a good price, sell it for a profit, and then pay him back. Hart loaned her the requested money, and she agreed to pay 12 percent interest, payable in interest only at the rate of $2,500 per month, with the principal due on February 2, 2006.
In September 2006, Hart made a second loan to defendant in the amount of $100,000. Defendant made the interest payments as promised; however, after the second loan was made, defendant’s checks for the interest payments were returned by the bank for insufficient funds. When Hart confronted defendant in regard to the bounced checks, defendant made excuses, such as the bank did not properly transfer the funds.
In October 2007, Hart loaned defendant a total of $300,000. In February 2008, Hart again loaned defendant $100,000 payable to LWS. Hart later discovered that the check made out to LWS was not the name of a furniture company as defendant had indicated but for another resident of Canyon Lake from whom defendant had borrowed money. Hart loaned defendant another $55,000 in June 2008, after defendant’s husband gave him a promissory note.
In July 2007, 74-year-old Robert Deckert, a long-time friend of defendant, loaned her $15,000, purportedly until she got a loan on some property she owned in the Salton Sea. In April or May 2008, defendant sent Deckert a check for $11,000 to pay back the loan, less $4,000 Deckert owed to defendant for granite work. However, after Deckert deposited the check, he was informed by his bank there were insufficient funds to cover it. In August 2008, defendant deposited a check directly into Deckert’s account but that check too was returned for insufficient funds. Deckert never received payment for the $11,000 loan.
Defendant and her husband had bank accounts at Fidelity Investments. However, these accounts were closed sometime in 2002. Sometime in 2008, defendant and her husband opened an account at the San Diego Credit Union. When opening the account, they provided the bank employee with a check from Fidelity Investments payable to the San Diego Credit Union in the amount of $10,000. They asked to withdraw a portion of those funds immediately and were given $2,000 in cash, as well as a cashier’s check in the amount of $5,300. Later, the Fidelity Investments check was returned with a notation stating “unable to locate the account.” In September 2008, after being advised of the situation, defendant brought $8,000 in cash to the credit union to cover the amount.
Defendant’s husband was a council member of the Canyon Lake City Council and the mayor pro tempore. Defendant had used a city-issued credit card to pay a past due debt to a collection agency.
On March 10, 2010, a 22 count felony information was filed against defendant. The information charged defendant with six counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); counts 1, 3-7); one count of embezzlement by a public officer (Pen. Code, § 424, subd. (a)(1); count 2); 13 counts of issuing checks on insufficient funds (Pen. Code, § 467a; counts 8-20); and one count of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count 21). The information also alleged that defendant took money in a value exceeding $150,000 (Pen. Code, § 12022.6, subd. (a)(2)) and that defendant committed two or more related felonies involving more than $500,000 (Pen. Code, § 186.11, subd. (a)(2)).
On June 2, 2010, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to counts 1, 3, 16, 17, and 18. Defendant also admitted that in the commission of count 3 she took money in a value exceeding $150,000. In exchange, for a stipulated term of three years four months in state prison and the dismissal of the remaining charges. The court found that the guilty plea was entered into freely and voluntarily and that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived her rights.
On June 23, 2010, defendant was sentenced in accordance with her plea agreement and awarded credit for time served. Defendant was ordered to pay victim restitution as follows: $11,000 plus interest to Robert Deckert; $23,000 plus interest to Leonard Stafford; $15,000 plus interest to Gordon Hanshaw; $2,500 plus interest to Lynn McCane; and $807,800 plus interest to Robert Hart.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal, challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
II
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon her request, this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we independently reviewed the record for potential error. We have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER Acting P.J., MILLER J.