P. v. Cuellar

Filed 1/7/09 P. v. Cuellar CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. James W. Hollman, Judge.

Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

By a criminal complaint filed February 14, 2008, appellant Anita Cuellar was charged with six counts of forgery (Pen. Code, 475, subd. (c); counts 2-7) and single counts of identity theft (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (c)(3); count 1) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a); count 8). On March 10, 2008, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled no contest to counts 1 and 8. On April 22, 2008, the court placed appellant on three years probation and ordered that she serve, as a condition of probation, 365 days in county jail, with credit for 12 days time served. Appellant did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, 1237.5).

Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.

FACTS^[1]

At approximately 5:29 p.m. on December 26, 2007, a police officer stopped a car for a traffic violation; appellant was the driver. A passenger in the car had a shoulder holster but no gun. The officer searched the car for a gun and found several CD players, a computer keyboard, numerous checks and several articles of mail, none of which were addressed to appellant. The officer learned, apparently through a records check, that the license on the vehicle was previously reported as stolen.

Appellant admitted that she was going to use the stolen mail in an attempt to get credit cards ....

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Hill, J., and Kane, J.

^[1]Our factual statement is taken from the report of the probation officer.