(Super. Ct. No. 08F07878)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte ,j.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Victor Daniel Valenzuela has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no errors and no concerns regarding presentence credits. We shall affirm the judgment.
Defendant was charged in an amended complaint with making a false or fraudulent statement to reduce the cost of worker's compensation insurance (count 1; Ins. Code, § 11880, subd. (a)), failing to provide information to avoid taxes (count 2; Unemp. Ins. Code, § 2117.5), and failing to pay unemployment insurance taxes (count 3; Unemp. Ins. Code, § 2118.5).
On January 26, 2011, defendant pled no contest to counts 1 and 2, with the understanding that he would receive probation and a different, pending case would be dismissed with a Harvey waiver.*fn1 The parties further agreed that defendant would pay $100,000 in restitution to the State Compensation Insurance Fund and $74,424.24 in restitution to the Employment Development Department.
The factual basis for the plea was stated by the People at the time of the change of plea hearing in summary as follows: defendant had claimed in State Compensation Insurance Fund payroll forms that he had no employees, when in fact he did, with the intent and purpose to reduce the premium rate and cost of insurance. He also failed to "file a return and report and supply information with intent to evade tax imposed by the California Unemployment Insurance Code" and further failed to report employees and pay employment taxes to the Employment Development Department.
The trial court granted defendant formal probation, with conditions including 180 days in jail (with credit for one day), payment of the agreed-upon restitution amounts, and payment of restitution to victims Rancho Cordova Police Department and Sacramento County Sheriff's Department in an amount to be determined. The court also imposed various fines and fees.
On May 23, 2011, defendant appeared with appointed counsel who argued a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming that he was under the influence of medication at the time of his plea. After hearing testimony, the court denied the motion.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant 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. We have undertaken an ...