P. v. Gray
Filed 4/9/08 P. v. Gray CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LONEL GRAY, Defendant and Appellant. | D051789 (Super. Ct. No. SCD204820) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Lonel Gray entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of elder theft (Pen. Code, 368, subd. (d)) and admitted he had a prior serious/violent felony or strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)). In exchange for the guilty plea and admission, six other chargesone count of grand theft, one count of burglary, and four counts of forgerywere dismissed. The trial court denied Gray's request to strike his prior serious/violent felony conviction and sentenced him to four years in prison.
FACTS
Gray cashed checks on the bank account of James Bradley, who rented a room from Gray's mother. Bradley had known Gray for "a long, long, long time." Gray found Bradley's checkbook outside his mother's house, made out checks to himself and friends, and forged Bradley's signature on the checks. Bradley was 68 years old.
Gray cashed Bradley's checks for approximately six months. The total amount of the forged checks was approximately $1,775.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court 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 refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to strike Gray's prior serious/violent felony conviction; and (2) whether Gray may challenge the validity of his plea.
We granted Gray permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He 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 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Gray on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
IRION, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
