Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF145248. James T. Warren, Judge.
Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RAMIREZ, P.J.
Defendant, Brian Saunders, was sentenced to 16 months in prison pursuant to a sentence bargain. His notice of appeal challenges the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
Background
On August 21, 2007, defendant Brian Saunders, an attorney, was charged with two counts of grand theft of money from a client trust account (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a), counts 1, 4), and two counts of making or uttering a check with intent to defraud (§ 476, counts 2, 3.) As to counts 1 and 4, it was further alleged that defendant took an amount in excess of $65,000. (§ 12022.6, subd. (a)(1).) It was also alleged that defendant committed two or more related felonies, a material element of which was fraud or embezzlement, which involved the taking of more than $100,000. (§ 186.11, subd. (a)(1).)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On September 26, 2008, defendant pled guilty prior to the preliminary hearing. (§ 859a.) Pursuant to the plea bargain, defendant pled guilty to count 2, making or uttering a false check, in return for dismissal of the balance of the complaint, and a stipulated sentence of 16 months in state prison. It was further agreed that the amount of restitution imposed could be based on dismissed counts. (See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 (Harvey).) Defendant waived his right to a probation report and was immediately sentenced to the term agreed to in the plea agreement.
On January 6, 2009, the court heard a motion by defendant for return of non-contraband which was granted. At the hearing, the court indicated that the identity of an additional victim had been disclosed and that the People wanted to add that victim to the victim restitution to be assessed, rather than file a new complaint. Defendant stipulated that the court could make a restitution order including that victim. The parties then stipulated that the amount of victim restitution was $110,893.97, which was ordered.
On March 5, 2009, defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
Discussion
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 that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.
Defendant’s Notice of Appeal states the additional victim restitution was based upon an illegal Family Court judgment. Unfortunately, defendant stipulated that the additional victim restitution could be included in the judgment, and stipulated to the overall amount of victim restitution. He has forfeited any right to challenge the amount of victim restitution on appeal. (See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351 [forfeiture for failure to object]; In re Jimmy P. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1679, 1685, fn. 8 [Scott applies to Harvey error]; see also, People v. Beck (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 209, 214-216 [upholding restitution order for counts dismissed with Harvey waiver].)
We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, J.,McKINSTER, J.