P. v. Edmonds
Filed 1/22/09 P. v. Edmonds CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THURMAN ANTHONY EDMONDS, Defendant and Appellant. | E046220 (Super.Ct.No. FVI702743) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Eric M. Nakata, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Statement of the case
Defendant was charged in a first amended felony information with two counts of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459)[1], two counts of forgery ( 475, subd. (a)), and two counts of grand theft of personal property ( 487, subd. (a)). The first amended information filed by the District Attorney of San Bernardino County also included seven special allegations filed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On February 19, 2008, in a negotiated disposition, defendant, represented by counsel, pled nolo contendere to one count of commercial burglary and admitted two of the one-year prison priors in exchange for the dismissal and the striking of the counts and special allegations of the information and a stipulated five year state prison sentence, less custody credits.
Thereafter, on June 12, 2008, defendants motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was denied.
In accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant was committed to state prison for five (5) years and awarded the appropriate custody credits. The remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the district attorney and in the interests of justice pursuant to section 1385.
Defendants notice of appeal was filed challenging the validity of the plea and requesting the issuance of a certificate of probable cause. The request was denied by the trial court and an amended notice of appeal challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea was subsequently filed.
FACTS
Defendant admitted to police officers to cashing two checks at Washington Mutual Bank totaling $900. The victim told police defendant did not have permission to cash the checks or be in the possession of those checks, nor had he given anyone permission to write either of those two checks to defendant. The victim and his wife were the only two authorized signers on that account.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
