Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. 222197, K. Michael Kirkman, Judge.
AARON, J.
Nakeya D. Whitman entered a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of forging and uttering a check (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)). The court imposed a stipulated sentence of concurrent two-year middle terms, to be served concurrently with her sentence in a Los Angeles County case. Whitman appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Whitman cashed two checks in Los Angeles County. The first check was in the amount of $658.22, drawn on the bank account of Explore Media Group Incorporated. The second check was in the amount of $1,760.99, drawn on the bank account of Sound Incorporated or Prosound. Both Explore Media Group Incorporated and Prosound are located in San Diego. Neither business had written a check to Whitman for the amount in question. There was no evidence that the checks were written in San Diego County, that Whitman engaged in any planning in San Diego County, that Whitman received any telephone calls from anyone in San Diego County pertaining to the checks, or that she had ever been in San Diego County.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as a possible but not arguable issue, whether San Diego County had jurisdiction to prosecute Whitman.
In People v. Hernandez (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 393,403, the court held that "criminal acts occurring during the commission of a single transaction may be prosecuted in any county affected by the transaction, regardless of where the essential elements of any crime involved in such acts occurred." Because Explore Media Group and Prosound are located in San Diego, San Diego County was "affected by the transaction." Prosecution in San Diego County was therefore proper.
We granted Whitman permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Whitman has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., HALLER, J.