Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC585264
Duffy, J.
In December 2006, defendant Omar Jahmal Nobles pleaded no contest to six felony counts, namely, two counts of false personation exposing the victim to liability (Pen. Code, § 529), forgery of a driver’s license (§ 470a), possession of a forged driver’s license (§ 470b), designing, making, altering, or embossing a counterfeit access card (§ 484f), and second degree burglary (§ 459). He also admitted the allegation that he had previously been convicted of a felony for which a prison sentence was imposed (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Consistently with the terms of his plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to a total term of two years and eight months in state prison. Defendant filed a timely appeal. We will affirm the judgment.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The factual background is derived from the transcript of the preliminary examination.
On the afternoon of March 13, 2005, Milpitas Police Officer Richard Galinis responded to a reported fraud crime at the Sears outlet at the Great Mall shopping center. The store manager reported to the officer that defendant had tried to open a Sears Master Card under the name of Javier Palma, using a California driver’s license that the manager thought “looked odd.” The license was in Mr. Palma’s name and contained a photograph of defendant. After examining the driver’s license more carefully at the police station, Officer Galinis determined that it was phony because (1) it did not have certain security features present on genuine California licenses, (2) the license number corresponded with a license issued to a third person, Jeffrey Vassilio, a deceased Caucasian, and (3) a review of a California identification photo printout for Javier Palma (with a date of birth the same as the date indicated on the license) showed a Hispanic male that was not defendant. (Defendant is African-American.)
The Sears manager also reported to Officer Galinis that defendant had tried “to use a [Citibank Visa] credit card that didn’t look real.” Javier Palma’s name appeared on the card. The officer examined the credit card and determined that it was probably phony because its seventh digit appeared to be restamped “2” and was originally “0,” and the silver hologram common on Visa cards did not appear to be properly embossed. Officer Galinis later determined that there had never been a Visa card issued with the number indicated on the card (using either of the two numbers as the seventh digit).
At about the time the officer arrived at the scene, defendant took a stack of credit card applications and, along with the Sears application he had filled out, ripped them up and threw them in a trash can. Officer Galinas retrieved the application defendant had filled out; it had information on it consistent with the phony driver’s license and Visa card defendant was using. After defendant was arrested and given Miranda advisements, he admitted to Officer Galinis that he was not Javier Palma and that his real name was Omar Jahmal Nobles.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda).
Defendant was charged by information filed June 30, 2005, with two counts of false personation exposing the victim to liability (§ 529; counts 1 and 2), forgery of a driver’s license (§ 470a; count 3), possession of a forged driver’s license (§ 470b; count 4), designing, making, altering, or embossing a counterfeit access card (§ 484f; count 5), and second degree burglary (§ 459; count 6). The information contained the further allegation that defendant had suffered a prior felony conviction for which he had served a prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). On December 13, 2006, after trial had commenced and during jury selection, defendant pleaded no contest to the six counts and admitted the prison prior allegation charged in the information, with the understanding that he would receive no more than, and no less than, a prison sentence of two years and eight months. Before accepting the plea, the court apprised defendant fully of the rights he was giving up as a result of his no contest plea and concerning the consequences of that plea. Counsel stipulated that there was a factual basis for the plea.
On December 21, 2007, the court sentenced defendant to the mid term of two years on the count 1 conviction and one third of the mid term, or eight months on the count 2 conviction, the two sentences to run consecutively. The court also imposed two-year concurrent prison terms for each of the remaining four counts. The court struck the punishment for the prison prior pursuant to section 1385. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in which he challenged the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which stated the case and the facts but raised no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. This period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Based upon that review, we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J., McAdams, J.