Filed 6/1/17 P. v. Dony CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEVEN KURT DONY,

Defendant and Appellant.
D070309



(Super. Ct. No. SCD256897)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Howard Shore, Judge. Affirmed.
Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In May 2015, an information was filed charging defendant and appellant Steven Kurt Dony—along with other individuals, none of whom are parties to this appeal—with conspiracy to commit theft (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a) & 484, subd. (a); count 1); 40 counts of filing a false instrument (§ 115, subd. (a); counts 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 61, 64-68, 72, 75, 77, 79 & 81); 30 counts of forgery (§ 470, subd. (b); counts 4, 7, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 48, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 69, 76, 78 & 80); and 11 counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); counts 8, 14, 35, 49, 60, 63, 70, 71, 73, 74 & 82). The information also charged an aggravated white collar crime enhancement (§ 186.11, subd. (a)) and alleged that defendant had a prior conviction for filing false instruments (§ 115, subds. (a) & (c)) and five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). All charges against defendant, a nonattorney, arose out of his participation and involvement in the operation of a law practice from about October 2011 through June 2014.
In early September 2015, defendant pleaded guilty to 10 counts of grand theft (counts 8, 14, 35, 49, 60, 63, 70, 71, 74 & 82) and three counts of filing a false instrument (counts 2, 21 & 44). Defendant also admitted the aggravated white collar crime enhancement (§ 186.11, subd. (a)). In connection with his plea, the record shows that both defendant and his attorney signed the plea form; that defendant placed his initials in all the required boxes on the plea form; and that defendant himself, as opposed to his attorney, stipulated at the plea hearing that the evidence received at the multi-day preliminary hearing would be deemed the factual basis for his plea.
The record further shows that, in response to questioning by the court during the plea hearing, defendant stated that he had sufficient opportunity to review the plea form with his attorney; that he understood the terms of the plea, including that he would be receiving a stipulated 12-year term; that other than the terms of the plea, no other promises were made to him; that he was pleading guilty "freely and voluntarily"; and that he understood the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, which was also provided on the plea form itself.
Defendant in late April 2016 filed a timely notice of appeal from the sentence and the validity of the plea and sought issuance of a certificate of probable cause to challenge his plea. The trial court on May 9, 2016 issued an order denying the request for a certificate, finding defendant "has not shown reasonable constitutional, jurisdiction, or other grounds for appeal relating to the legality of the proceedings."
As a result of the trial court's May 9 order, this court issued the following order on May 18, 2016:
"Appellant's request for a certificate of probable cause was denied and, as part of his plea, he waived issues relating to his stipulated sentence, any suppression motion denials and any prior strike convictions. The issues on appeal are thus limited to matters occurring after the plea that do not involve the sentence or prior strike convictions."
On November 14, 2016, appointed counsel of defendant filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende) indicating counsel was unable to identify any reasonable arguable issues for reversal on appeal. As such, appointed counsel asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. In connection with this court's review under Wende, defendant was advised he could file a supplemental brief, which defendant has not done.
DISCUSSION
We have examined the entire record (including as supplemented and augmented) as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. We have not identified any reasonable arguable issue for reversal on appeal. We are satisfied that defendant's appointed counsel has fully complied with counsel's responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (See id. at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.


BENKE, J.

WE CONCUR:



McCONNELL, P. J.



HALLER, J.