legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Makris

P. v. Makris
02:09:2009



P. v. Makris



Filed 2/6/09 P. v. Makris CA2/1



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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



THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and Respondent,



v.



SOPHIA PATRICIA MAKRIS,



Defendant and Appellant.



B207483



(Super. Ct. No. LA048540)



APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Darlene Schempp, Judge. Affirmed.



Joanna Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.



No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.



_________________________________



From February, 2003 through June, 2004, appellant Sophia Patricia Makris used her employers credit card machine to credit a total of $177,352.43 to her own credit cards and two credit cards belonging to her fianc. The trial court convicted appellant of grand theft and found the loss exceeded $150,000. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for four years.



We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On October 28, 2008, we advised appellant she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.



We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)



DISPOSITION



The judgment is affirmed.



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.



WEISBERG, J.*



We concur:



MALLANO, P.J. ROTHSCHILD, J.



Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.



Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.



San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com







*Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.





Description Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2026 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2026 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale