P. v. Scrima

Filed 1/14/10 P. v. Scrima CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

Defendant George J. Scrima pled no contest to grand theft. (Pen. Code,  487, subd. (a).) In exchange, three related counts were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.[1] Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation on the condition, among others, that he serve 360 days of incarceration with one day of credit for time served. The trial court issued a certificate of probable cause.

FACTS[2]

In June or July 2007, defendant appeared at an Elk Grove car dealership and represented that he was an automobile broker who was seeking a specific car for a client. A purchase agreement was concluded. The dealership delivered a sedan to defendants address in Burlingame, and defendant supplied a check for $33,953.49, which the bank later returned due to insufficient funds.

In July 2007, before the bank returned the check, defendant contacted the dealership and arranged the purchase of another car for $54,782. The car was delivered to defendants address in Burlingame. Defendant claimed that there was some problem with the paperwork for the car.

Although defendant and the dealership remained in constant contact, defendant never produced the necessary funds to pay for either car. The dealership contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles and learned that defendants brokerage license was invalid.

When contacted by police, defendant claimed that he had been in a cash flow pinch and expected to resolve the problem in a few days. He admitted that he had received two cars from the dealership and had not paid for them.

When interviewed by the probation officer, defendant admitted having committed the theft crime and confirmed that he had been unable to pay the balance owed to the dealership.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

SIMS , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

BUTZ , J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1]People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

[2] Because the matter was resolved by plea, our statement of facts is taken from the probation officers report.