P. .v Gamero

Filed 5/4/07 P. .v Gamero CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE COURT:^*

Joseph Gamero appeals from the judgment entered upon revocation of probation which was granted following his plea of guilty to count 1, identity theft in violation of Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a) and count 2, grand theft personal property in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a). He was sentenced to the midterm of two years on each count to be served concurrently. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.

As to counts 1 and 2, the information alleged that between June 18 and July 25, 2004, appellant obtained personal identifying information from the victim and used that information for an unlawful purpose and to obtain credit in the name of the victim without her consent. It also alleged that between June 18, 2004 and July 25, 2004, appellant took $3,115 from Bank of America. Transcripts of the preliminary hearing reveal that appellant was an acquaintance of the victim, who lived in Texas. Appellant used the victims identification to open up a Bank of America credit card in her name. The investigating officer traced a payment made to a Sprint Cell Phone plan to appellant. Bank of America suffered a loss of $3,115.68 through appellants use of the unauthorized credit card.

The probation violation was based on the following facts. Appellant only completed one day out of the 60 days of court ordered Caltrans work. He never registered for counseling as required by the probation department, and he did not advise his probation officer that his address had been changed.

After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised.

On January 23, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.

^* BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J., CHAVEZ, J.