P. v. Warren

P. v. >Warren >























Filed 8/5/10 P. v. Warren CA2/6













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.







IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION SIX




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTWOINE ISRAEL WARREN, Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B220191 (Super. Ct. No. SA067252) (Los Angeles County)

Antwoine Israel Warren
appeals the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to possession of a forged driver’s license
(Pen. Code,[1]
§ 470b) and admitted suffering a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds.
(b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). In
exchange for his plea, the prosecution dismissed charges of attempted grand theft (§§ 664/486)
and identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)), and six prior prison term
allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
The trial court sentenced appellant to 32 months in state prison. His request for a certificate of probable cause was
denied.

Because appellant
pleaded guilty, the relevant facts are derived from the preliminary hearing transcript. On February
26, 2008, someone identifying himself as Vidal Gutierrez obtained a
$1,800 credit line at a Best Buy store in Downey. The following day, appellant attempted to
access the credit line at a Best Buy store in Hawthorne
by providing a driver’s license purporting to identify him as Gutierrez and
using Gutierrez’s social security number.
On appellant’s third attempt to enter the correct social security number
on the electronic key pad, the store clerk noticed that appellant had to look
at his cell phone for the number and became suspicious. Appellant was detained and the police were
called. It was subsequently discovered
that the driver’s license appellant offered to identify himself as Gutierrez
was fraudulent. A police detective
contacted Gutierrez, who indicated he had been a victim of identity theft about
a year earlier and that he had never opened or filled out a credit application
for an account at Best Buy.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this
appeal. Appellant’s request to relieve
his appointed counsel was denied. After
examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief in this court raising no issues
and requesting that we independently examine the record pursuant to >People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436. On April 30, 2010, we advised appellant that he had 30 days
in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or
arguments he wished us to consider. We
received no response.

We have reviewed the
record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her
responsibilities and that no arguable
issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

The judgment is
affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.







PERREN,
J.

We concur:







GILBERT, P.J.







COFFEE, J.



Katherine
Mader, Judge



Superior
Court County
of Los Angeles









Maxine Weksler, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for
Plaintiff and Respondent.





Publication courtesy of California
pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information
provided by www.fearnotlaw.com