Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC775572
ELIA, J.Following her no contest pleas to grand theft, forgery, money laundering, and receiving stolen property, appellant was sentenced to nine years and four months in state prison. She appeals. We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After examining the record, counsel filed a request for an independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 . Counsel has not referred this court to any possible, but not arguable, issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396].) On February 20, 2009, we advised appellant that she had 30 days within which to submit personally any arguments that she wanted us to consider. To date, we have received no response from appellant. We affirm.
In October 2005, appellant was hired as the business accountant for Milpitas Auto Body and worked there until November 2006. She was put in charge of paying bills and doing the payroll. She did not have the authority to sign checks. The business also hired her codefendant for two months at the end of 2005. The owner of the company discovered that the codefendant had received several payroll checks, in the amount of $65,000, after he was no longer working for Milpitas Auto Body. Investigation revealed that appellant had used company checks to pay for personal expenses such as car rentals, hotel stays, groceries, as well as the codefendant's child support payments.
In August 2007, appellant was charged with one count of committing grand theft of more than $150,000, 20 counts of forgery, two counts of money laundering, and one count of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (a), 12022.6, subd. (a)(2), 470, subd. (d), 186.10, 496, subd. (a).) In November 2007, appellant was brought to Santa Clara County from Valley State Prison, where she was serving a sentence following her conviction for three counts of grand theft in Butte County. In May 2008, appellant pleaded no contest to all charges with no conditions. At the time of her plea, the court asked her if she had had any problems talking to defense counsel about her case. She said, "No. He has been exceptional." The court asked her if she was satisfied with counsel's advice. She answered, "I'm very satisfied."
Before sentencing, the prosecutor filed a sentencing memorandum describing appellant's criminal history and requesting that the trial court sentence appellant to 14 years in state prison consecutive to the sentence she was serving. The probation report prepared for sentencing noted, "Although the defendant lacks a criminal history in Santa Clara County, she possesses an extensive criminal history from various counties dating back to 1984, consisting of eleven felony convictions and one misdemeanor conviction which are mainly theft-related. It appears she received three separate grants of probation, which she never successfully completed. Additionally, she was returned to prison custody on two occasions for violating the terms of her Parole." Appellant told the probation officer that she was "embarrassed and ashamed for again committing a crime against someone who trusted her."
Appellant was already serving a sentence of five years and four months for the prior grand theft convictions in Butte County. The trial court sentenced her to nine years and four months consecutive to that sentence and also imposed various fines and fees and restitution of $200,914.37 to the owner of Milpitas Auto Body.
On October 8, 2008, appellant filed a pro per notice of appeal. She requested a certificate of probable cause, declaring that her plea and conviction were "the result of ineffective aid of counsel." This was denied. Counsel was appointed for appellant and counsel filed an amended notice of appeal, challenging the sentence and matters occurring after the plea.
A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented appellant in this appeal.
Disposition
The order appealed from is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RUSHING, P. J., PREMO, J.