P. v. Smith
Filed 11/13/08 P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SIMON PETER SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. | H032118 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC596575) |
Defendant Simon Peter Smith broke into his employers store room and stole money and items from a safe. Thereafter, he pleaded guilty to one count felony grand theft by an employee (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (b)(3)), one misdemeanor count possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11364), and one misdemeanor count possession of less than one ounce of mariguana. (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b).) Defendant also admitted one strike prior and three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b).) In exchange for his plea, the court sentenced defendant to 32 months in prison and granted him 974 days credit. The court also imposed 30 days to be served concurrently for each misdemeanor. His sentence was deemed served and he was released on parole. The court reserved the issue of restitution until a restitution hearing could be held. On September 21, 2007, the trial court held a restitution hearing and ordered that appellant pay restitution in the amount of $6,180. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the restitution order.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_____________________________________
rushing, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
PREMO, J.
_________________________________
ELIA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
