IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT Shasta
January 13, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JOHN FRANK MACMILLAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Super. Ct. Nos. 09F4462 & 09F4920
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro,j.
P. v. MacMillan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant, John Frank MacMillan, asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no concerns regarding presentence credits. We will affirm the judgment and direct the trial court to correct clerical errors in the abstract of judgment.
In March 2009, defendant went to a local furniture store to rent furniture. Defendant opened an account with the store and wrote two checks to cover the cost of the furniture rental; those checks were returned by the bank for insufficient funds. Defendant then forged a money order to cover the rental fees and penalties associated with late rental payments and bounced checks.
The store owner reported defendant to the police. During the investigation, it was discovered that defendant used a false social security number to open the store account.
After learning about defendant's arrest, numerous people contacted the Redding Police Department to report further criminal activity. According to the reports, defendant repeatedly forged money orders, wrote numerous checks against insufficient funds, and took property and services for which he never paid.
Defendant was subsequently charged in Shasta County Superior Court, case No. 09F4462, with 11 felonies, including one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)), one count of passing a fictitious check (Pen. Code, § 476), five counts of issuing a check against insufficient funds (Pen. Code, § 476a, subd. (a)), one count of filing a false financial statement with the intent to obtain property, cash, or credit (Pen. Code, § 532a, subd. (1)), and two counts of identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)), all occurring from February to April 2009.
A second complaint was filed in Shasta County Superior Court, case No. 09F4920, in which defendant was charged with 41 felonies, including 10 counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), 16 counts of petty theft with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 666), 14 counts of forging a check with the intent to pass in order to defraud (Pen. Code, § 475, subd. (c)), and a single count of issuing a check against insufficient funds (Pen. Code, § 476a, subd. (a)).
Defendant pleaded no contest to a single count of identity theft in case No. 09F4462. Defendant also pleaded no contest to three counts of petty theft with a prior and one count of forging a check with the intent to pass in order to defraud in case No. 09F4920. In exchange for defendant's plea, the remaining charges and allegations were dismissed with a Harvey*fn1 waiver, as well as the charges pending against defendant in Shasta County Superior Court case No. 10F2169.
The court imposed a stipulated term of two years, imposed various fines and fees, awarded nine days of custody credit in case No. 09F4462 (five days of custody credit and four days of conduct credit) and one day of custody credit in case No. 09F4920.
Defendant appeals. Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 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 have elapsed and we have 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.
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the amended abstract of judgment to reflect that counts B11, B22, B31 and B40 were committed in 2009 (not 2008) and to send a certified copy of the second amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
BLEASE, Acting P.J.