Filed 5/9/17 P. v. Tran CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL ANH TRAN,

Defendant and Appellant.
H043944
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. C1633912)
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Michael Anh Tran pleaded no contest to acquiring or retaining possession of the personal identifying information of 10 or more people with intent to defraud (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(3); possession of a forged driver’s license (§ 470b); and possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and admitted the allegation that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court placed defendant on formal probation for three years and imposed a six-month county jail sentence.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The 30-day period has elapsed and we have received no response from defendant.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the entire record. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, supra, at page 110, we provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.”
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant worked for Hilltop Financial assisting customers who were applying for a home loan. In the course of his work defendant obtained financial documents from several customers and used their information to commit identity theft. The probation officer advised the trial court in open court during the sentencing hearing that a review of defendant’s text messages “revealed close partnerships around financial fraud and identity theft activity. Credit card numbers, checks, drugs, that’s how he communicated.”
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The complaint filed in March 2016 charged defendant with acquiring or retaining possession of the personal identifying information of 10 or more people with intent to defraud (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(3); count 1); possession of a forged driver’s license (§ 470b; counts 2 & 3); possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 4), and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364; count 5). The complaint also alleged that defendant had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
In May 2016 defendant pleaded no contest to count 1 (identity theft), count 2 (possession of a forged driver’s license), and count 4 (possession of methamphetamine), and admitted the allegation that he had served a prior prison term. In accordance with the parties’ plea agreement, the trial court placed defendant on formal probation for three years and imposed a six-month county jail sentence. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees, including a restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a suspended probation revocation restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.44). This court granted defendant’s motion to augment the record with the trial court’s breakdown of the penalty assessments imposed by the court.
The probation conditions imposed by the trial court included the following search conditions regarding defendant’s cellular telephone:
“7. The defendant shall as a condition of probation . . . , give specific consent as that term is defined in Penal Code Section 1546 to any Peace Officer or any law enforcement agency to seize and search all cellular telephones in [his] possession or under [his] control to a search of any text messages, voicemail messages, call logs, photographs, e-mail accounts, social media accounts (including but not limited to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat or any other site which the Probation Officer informs [him] of), and/or applications (‘apps’) pertaining to said accounts at any time with or without a warrant for evidence of ID theft.
“8. The defendant shall further agree and specifically consent to provide all passwords necessary to access or search such cellular telephones and understand that refusal to provide the password will constitute a violation of the terms of [his] probation.
“9. The defendant’s cellular telephones shall be subject to Forensic Analysis search by any Peace Officer or any law enforcement agency at any time with or without a warrant for identity theft evidence.”
IV. WENDE ANALYSIS
Defendant filed a notice of appeal that states that the appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.)
V. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



____________________________________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.





WE CONCUR:




_________________________________
ELIA, ACTING P.J.









_________________________________
MIHARA, J.