P. v. Trujillo
Filed 3/11/08 P. v. Trujillo CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MONIQUE LETICIA TRUJILLO, Defendant and Appellant. | F053084 (Super. Ct. No. F06903109-7) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. David Andrew Gottlieb, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Pursuant to a plea agreement covering the instant case and Fresno County Superior Court case No. F06909416 (case No. 916), appellant Monique Trujillo pled no contest to a single count of unlawful use of personal indentifying information (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a)). At a sentencing hearing covering both cases, in the instant case the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years probation, one of the terms of which was that she serve 240 days in county jail. The court ordered that the county jail term be served concurrently with a term of the same length imposed as a condition of probation in case No. 916.
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
FACTS
Appellant used the name Claudia Carbajal in completing an application for the rental of an apartment. Appellant also presented to the apartment owner a California drivers license bearing her photograph but Carbajals identifying information, as well as a social security card bearing Carbajals name and social security number. Appellant told an investigating police detective that Carbajal had given her permission to use her identification card to rent the apartment. However, Carbajal told the detective she did not know appellant and did not give her permission to use her identifying information.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
*Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
