Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CM028404
BUTZ, J.In January 2008, defendant Joseph Harold Whittemore, Jr., entered a check cashing firm, displayed his driver’s license to an employee, and cashed a check in the amount of $3,500. Defendant claimed the check was a bonus for working at an “‘internet company.’”
Because the matter was resolved by plea, our statement of facts is taken from the probation officer’s report.
The check was drawn upon an Ohio bank in the name of Retail Forward Inc. The employee contacted a check verification company, which validated the check’s account number but not the company name. Believing that the check was good, the employee cashed the check. She had defendant imprint his thumbprint on the front of the check, per company procedure. She later received information that the check was fictitious.
The employee contacted Oroville police. The investigating officer was familiar with defendant from a previous forged check case, in which defendant had cashed fictitious money grams that he claimed to have received from an “‘internet girlfriend’” in the amount of $2,653.53. During the investigation, the officer had spoken to defendant at length about these types of Internet crimes and scams.
Officers attempted to contact defendant at his residence, where another resident confirmed that he was present. Defendant tried to flee out a rear door and was apprehended.
After being advised of his constitutional rights, defendant admitted cashing the check but denied knowing that it was forged. Defendant claimed that he was under contract to cash checks, keep 10 percent, and forward the balance, less any wire fees, to the company that had contracted with him. The officer reiterated that this was the same scenario he had counseled defendant about during the previous criminal investigation in which he had been cashing money grams at a retailer. Defendant claimed the present scenario was different, in that he was working with a company rather than an individual. Based on this investigation, and the fact the officer had previously counseled defendant regarding Internet fraud, the officer believed that defendant had a reasonable belief that this check was fictitious. By his own admission, defendant related that he would have profited from cashing the present check.
Defendant pleaded no contest to forgery. (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d).) In exchange, a prior prison term allegation (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) was dismissed with a Harvey waiver.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years, awarded 103 days of custody credit and 50 days of conduct credit, and ordered to make restitution to the victim and pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $36 theft fine (§ 1202.5, subd. (a)), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8). Criminal proceedings were suspended and defendant was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center. Defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
Defendant appeals. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J., RAYE, J.