Filed 6/13/17 P. v. Hartley CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TERRANCE MERENT HARTLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.
H044298
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. C1353716)
Defendant Terrance Merent Hartley pleaded no contest to grand theft by an employee. (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487, subd. (b)(3).) Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for three years. Defendant was ordered to complete 100 hours of community service, stay 100 yards away from the Milpitas Best Buy where he committed the theft, and pay $6,392 in restitution to Best Buy.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts, but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the entire record, keeping in mind that our review is limited to grounds for appeal that occurred after entry of defendant’s no contest plea and do not affect the plea’s validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1), (b)(4)(B).) We agree with defendant’s appellate counsel that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case.
On February 3 and 4, 2013, defendant, a Best Buy employee, sold a friend eight Apple iPhone 5 cell phones for $0 plus sales tax; the phones should have been sold for $799 each. Defendant was charged with grand theft by an employee. (§§ 484, 487, subd. (b)(3).) Defendant pleaded no contest to that charge on August 14, 2013.
At the sentencing hearing held on November 12, 2013, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. Defendant was ordered to complete 100 hours of community service, stay 100 yards away from the Milpitas Best Buy where he committed the theft, and pay $6,392 in restitution to Best Buy.
At a hearing on October 30, 2014, the trial court modified defendant’s probation and ordered him to make payments of $100 per month towards victim restitution, fees, and fines. The monthly payment amount was reduced to $20 per month on June 4, 2015.
At a hearing on November 10, 2016, the trial court modified and extended defendant’s probation to November 12, 2018 due to defendant’s failure to complete payment of the previously-ordered restitution.
DISCUSSION
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



____________________________________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.





WE CONCUR:




_________________________________
ELIA, ACTING P.J.









_________________________________
MIHARA, J.