Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Ventura No. 2005013995, Allan L. Steele, Judge.
Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
COFFEE, J.
Appellant appeals his conviction following jury trial of grand theft automobile (count 1), grand theft of personal property (count 3), and failure to deliver a certificate of ownership and registration of a vehicle (counts 2 and 4). (Pen. Code, § 487, subds. (a) & (d)(1); Veh. Code, §5753.) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on supervised probation for 48 months, with several conditions, including spending days in jail. The court also ordered that appellant pay various fines, fees, and $2,019 in victim restitution.
In 2004 and 2005, appellant operated the Quality Automotive Group, Inc. used car dealership. He hired Timothy Coleman to work there and ordinarily paid him with cash. Coleman agreed to purchase a 1997 Ford Mustang for $4,500 from appellant and paid him $1,700 (with several checks). Coleman understood that appellant would withhold $900 of his earnings each month for the balance of the sales price. Coleman finished paying for the Mustang in April 2005. Appellant failed to provide him with a registration or ownership certificate. On April 15, 2005, Coleman contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Department of Investigation. On April 18, 2005, the Mustang was impounded. The towing company released it to appellant. He sold the Mustang to Samuel Faanono in June 2005. After continuing its investigation of Coleman's complaint, the DMV impounded the Mustang in October 2005. By that time, Faanono had paid appellant approximately $1,400 for the Mustang.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting this court to independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On October 15, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. Appellant submitted a letter brief. He contends that his trial was unfair because (1) the court did not allow "enough time . . . to properly prepar[e] for a jury trial"; (2) the jury was "aware potentially that [he was] in a trial for another matter"; (3) the court "made up [its] mind that [he] was guilty"; (4) the court "led the jury"; and (5) the court improperly instructed the jury that "when someone testifies and there is no rebuttal witness you must [accept their] testimony as fact whether it is or not." We disagree. The court granted continuances upon request before trial. The record does not suggest that any juror was biased against appellant, or that the court led the jury. Counsel represented appellant and participated in the selection of jurors and jury instructions. The court instructed jurors properly concerning their assessment of the evidence.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., YEGAN, J.