Opinion
B295580
02-04-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIANNE SMYTH, Defendant and Appellant.
Law Office of Kiran Prasad and Kiran Prasad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA465903) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig Elliott Veals, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Kiran Prasad and Kiran Prasad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Conforming to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Smyth's counsel filed an opening brief containing a statement of facts but raising no issues. Counsel asks this court to review the record independently and to determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. Smyth did not submit a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues exist. We affirm.
All citations are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise specified.
I
Smyth was neighbors with Jonathan Walton. The two became close friends. Smyth told Walton that her family was Irish royalty and she was entitled to a family inheritance worth $25 million. Smyth told Walton her family was trying to disinherit her and if she was ever convicted of a felony she would lose her inheritance.
About 14 months into their friendship, Smyth called Walton from jail and told him her family was trying to frame her for stealing $200,000 from the business she worked for. Walton paid $4,200 for Smyth's bail and she repaid him the next day. Walton also loaned Smyth approximately $8,600 to pay for living expenses.
In 2016, Smyth told Walton she needed $50,000 to settle her legal case and not be convicted of a felony, thus maintaining her right to her inheritance. Walton loaned Smyth $50,000 by letting her business charge this amount to his credit cards. Walton and Smyth executed a written agreement stating Smyth had borrowed $50,000 from Walton and setting forth a payment plan.
Walton became suspicious of Smyth and learned she had already been convicted of a felony. Walton confronted Smyth, who denied making any misrepresentations to Walton. Smyth never repaid Walton the $50,000. Walton went to the police.
Smyth was charged with one count of violating section 487, subdivision (a). Smyth pleaded not guilty. It was also alleged that, pursuant to section 12022.1, Smyth violated section 487, subdivision (a) while released from custody on case number SA087840. Smyth stipulated to this allegation.
A jury found Smyth guilty. Smyth was sentenced to the high term of three years. The court imposed an enhancement of two years to be served consecutively pursuant to section 12022.1. Smyth stipulated to victim-specific restitution in the amount of $50,000.
II
Smyth filed a notice of appeal on January 29, 2019. We appointed counsel to represent Smyth and her counsel filed a Wende brief. Counsel declared they reviewed the record. Counsel wrote to Smyth explaining their evaluation of the record. Counsel further declared that they advised Smyth of her right under Wende to file a supplemental brief.
Smyth did not file a supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record of the proceedings consisting of the clerk's transcript and reporter's transcript and are satisfied that appointed counsel fully complied with their responsibilities in assessing whether any colorable appellate issues exist. There are no arguable appellate issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WILEY, J. We concur:
BIGELOW, P. J.
GRIMES, J.