Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. CR064418, CR064649
Richman, J.
Counsel appointed for defendant Sean Ronald Peaslee has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he elected not to do so. We have conducted that review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.
Our review shows the following:
On August 16, 2006, the District Attorney of Humboldt County filed a criminal complaint in action No. CR064418 in which defendant was charged with the second degree burglary of Karen Kalogero’s car (Pen. Code, § 459), receiving property taken from the car (Pen. Code, § 496), falsely identifying himself to a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9), and three counts of using another person’s credit card (Pen. Code, § 484g).
A preliminary examination on these charges was conducted on August 29, 2006. The evidence showed that on August 10, 2006, Ms. Kalogero reported to police that her car had been broken into while parked at a state beach. Her purse, which contained her credit cards, was taken from the car. Several hours later, Ms. Kalogero reported to an officer that one of the stolen credit cards had been used at a gas station. The officer went to the station and recovered receipts for three purchases of gasoline. The station’s videotape security camera recorded pictures of the purchases, and showed defendant putting gasoline into a pickup truck.
The truck was spotted two days later at a campground. Defendant was found in a tent. A search of the tent produced Ms. Kalogero’s driver’s license and credit cards. Defendant identified himself to police as John Morgan. A subsequent search of the truck found more of Ms. Kalogero’s credit cards.
The magistrate ordered defendant held to answer on all of the charges. An information for the charges, including additional counts of receiving stolen property and possession of a hypodermic syringe (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4140), was filed on September 11, 2006.
Two days later, the District Attorney commenced action No. CR064949 by fi1ing a complaint in which defendant was charged with two counts of second degree burglary, three counts of receiving stolen property, and one count of possessing cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350). No preliminary examination was had on these charges before the parties agreed to a negotiated disposition of both actions.
On September 26, 2006, defendant accepted the terms offered by the prosecution: In exchange for pleading guilty to one charge of second degree burglary and one charge of receiving stolen property, defendant would receive a “stipulated term” of two years in state prison, that being two years for each charge, to be served concurrently; all remaining charges would be dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) Cal.3d 754, for restitution purposes. In addition, no further charges would be filed arising out of investigations that were still on-going.
Defendant was sentenced on October 24, 2006. Pursuant to the agreement, the trial court sentenced him to the mid-term of two years on the burglary charge, and the same for the receiving charge, the latter to be served concurrently.
Defendant then perfected this timely appeal.
At all relevant times, defendant was represented by counsel who defended his interests with more than competent ability, particularly in negotiating what the court told defendant was “an awfully good . . . settlement for you.”
Defendant’s change of pleas complied with Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. Defendant was advised of the consequences of the change of pleas as required by In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857.
The sentence imposed was not unauthorized.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
We concur: Haerle, Acting P.J., Lambden, J.