Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BA339832 Frederick N. Wapner, Judge.
Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.
After a jury trial, appellant Raymond McDaniel was convicted of one count of perjury by declaration (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a)) and one count of preparing false documentary evidence. (Pen. Code, § 134.) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years of formal probation on the condition that he perform 240 hours of community service. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.
On November 5, 2009, after examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which contained an acknowledgment that he had been unable to find any arguable issues. On or before that date, appellant's counsel transmitted a copy of the opening brief to appellant and advised him that he could submit a supplemental brief in his own behalf. Further, on November 25, 2009, we directed counsel to send the record on appeal and a copy of the opening brief to appellant. On that date, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
The evidence was as follows: in October 2006, appellant, a licensed process server, was hired by Rhansford Watson to serve process in his small claims suit against Irene Lento, after the Sheriff had tried and failed to effectuate service. Between October and January 2007, Watson paid appellant $500 for this service. In January 2007, appellant gave Watson a completed proof of service form. The form indicates personal service at the address of Lento's post office box in Malibu. Appellant told Watson that he had personally served Lento after he staked out her post office box.
The case against Lento proceeded to default. On learning of the default, and on examining the proof of service in the court file, Lento informed authorities that she had not been personally served, and in fact was not in Southern California at the relevant time.
Appellant later admitted to a District Attorney investigator that he had not served Lento personally. At trial, he testified that he had in fact not personally served Lento, but had left the forms with the clerk at the facility where she had her post office box. He also testified that he had simply made a mistake in the way he had filled out the forms.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MOSK, J., KRIEGLER, J.