Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County No. 2006024601, of Ventura Bruce A. Clark, Judge
California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
PERREN, J.
Lisa Dawn Thomas appeals the judgment entered after she pled guilty to grand theft by embezzlement (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). Imposition of sentence was suspended, and Thomas was placed on probation for 36 months. As a condition of her probation, she was also ordered to serve 90 days in jail.
We appointed counsel to represent Thomas 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.
Because Thomas pled guilty, the facts are derived from the probation report. In August 2005, Thomas began working as a manager at the St. John Knit Company in Camarillo. Between May and June of 2006, Thomas stole approximately $5,000 from her employer by appropriating funds she was supposed to have deposited with the bank. She also stole $469 in petty cash. Thomas subsequently signed a confession letter and promised to pay back the stolen funds. As a condition of her probation, she was ordered to pay $5,514.98 in victim restitution.
Thomas's attorney asserts that the facts are irrelevant to the appeal because Thomas pled guilty and counsel was unable to identify any arguable issues. Because we must provide a brief description of the facts in affirming the judgment (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123), we expect counsel to include a statement of facts in future appeals requesting independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
On November 9, 2007, we advised Thomas that she had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments she wished us to consider. We received no response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Thomas's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 124; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, Acting P.J.COFFEE, J.