P. v. Simpson
Filed 3/22/07 P. v. Simpson CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND SIMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B193844 (Super. Ct. No. VA088464-01 (Los Angeles County) |
Raymond Simpson appeals a judgment entered following conviction by jury of one count of grand theft by embezzlement. (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a).)[1]
An information charged Simpson with one count of grand theft by embezzlement. ( 487, subd. (a).) A jury trial followed. Debra Stephenson, the owner of TWC Educational Programs, Inc., testified that she had employed Simpson as an office manager. Stephenson identified 10 business checks written between November 24, 2004, and December 28, 2004, exceeding $400, that had been cashed without her authorization. In defense, Simpson testified that Stephenson's husband, Jonathan Schrieber, gave him the checks to process and obtain cash for on his behalf. In rebuttal, Schrieber testified and denied giving Simpson the checks to cash. Schrieber stated that he did not have the authority to sign or stamp checks on Stephenson's behalf.
The jury convicted Simpson of one count of grand theft. The trial court imposed a mid-term prison sentence of two years, suspended execution of sentence, and granted Simpson five years' probation with terms and conditions, including ninety days confinement in the county jail. The trial court awarded Simpson 46 days of custody and conduct custody credit, imposed a $200 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and imposed a stayed $200 parole revocation restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45.
We appointed counsel to represent Simpson in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues.
On January 19, 2007, we advised Simpson that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Simpson's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P.J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
PERREN, J.
Philip H. Hickok, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Gloria C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.
[1]All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
