Filed 10/27/17 P. v. Bey CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
QADIRAH BEY,
Defendant and Appellant.

A147298

(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. H57092C)


This case comes before us for review under the procedures prescribed in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442 (Wende). Qadirah Bey (Qadirah) appeals from her convictions by no contest pleas of one count of conspiracy (Pen. Code, § 182), eight counts of filing false instruments (§ 115), three counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)), one count of failing to make unemployment insurance contributions (Unemp. Ins. Code, § 2108), one count of failing to make disability insurance contributions (Unemp. Ins. Code, § 2110.3), one count of willfully failing to withhold unemployment insurance contributions from employee remuneration (Unemp. Ins. Code, § 2110.5), three counts of failing to file a tax return (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19706), and two counts of insurance fraud. (§ 550, subd. (a)(1)), with enhancements based on the amounts of the losses. We find no meritorious issues and affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The charges had been filed against a group of individuals affiliated with the Black Muslim Temple in Oakland, who operated a security firm and a janitorial service, and who submitted false paperwork to obtain public contracts. The paperwork falsely stated that certain principals of the firms had educational backgrounds they did not have, experience with law enforcement and the military they did not have, and insurance, licenses and job references they did not have.
Qadirah and five codefendants were charged with a series of crimes committed between 2009 and 2014 while doing business under the name BMT International Security Services (BMT) or Back on Track janitorial services. BMT, under various names, operated out of 818 27th Street in Oakland. The offenses arose from successful bids by BMT on public contracts for security services with Alameda County and the Housing Authority of Los Angeles, and other bids submitted for public contracts with the Port of Oakland, the City of Oakland, the City of Vallejo, the City of Newport Beach, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
Alameda County’s investigation into BMT’s contracts and contract bids in both Northern and Southern California led to the filing of a 42-count information on February 4, 2015, including allegations of conspiracy, offering false or forged instruments, grand theft, real estate fraud, insurance fraud, failure to pay or withhold unemployment and disability insurance, failure to file tax returns, and false statements in bankruptcy.
Qadirah was identified at times as the treasurer or chief financial officer, and her role in the conspiracy included handling many of the financial transactions. She also was identified as having posed as “Barbara Goodman,” an invented persona through which Qadirah made presentations to prospective contracting entities to help BMT procure contracts.
Following a joint preliminary hearing, Qadirah was charged with ¬¬21 of the 42 counts: two counts of conspiracy (counts 1 & 42), ten counts of offering false or forged instruments (counts 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 13), three counts of grand theft (counts 3, 7 and 23), two counts of insurance fraud (counts 27 & 28), one count of failing to make unemployment insurance contributions (count 24), one count of failing to make disability insurance contributions (count 25), one count of failing to withhold unemployment tax (count 26), and three counts of failing to file a tax return (counts 31, 32 & 33). The information also alleged special aggravated white collar crime enhancements based on losses exceeding $500,000 in connection with the conspiracy to submit false documents to procure public contracts (counts 1-10) (§ 186.11, subd. (a)) and losses exceeding $200,000 for conspiracy to operate as a private patrol service without a license (count 42) (§ 12022.6, subds. (a)(2) and (b)).
On October 5, 2015, as part of a negotiated disposition, Qadirah pled no contest to all of the charges against her (counts 1 through 10, 13, 23 through 28, and 31–33), except count 42, which was dismissed by the People as part of the plea agreement. She admitted one enhancement for taking over $100,000 in connection with the grand thefts and conspiracy to commit grand theft (§ 186.11, subd. (a)) and one for taking an aggregate of more than $200,000 in multiple grand thefts (§ 12022.6, subds. (a)(2), (b)).
Before she entered her pleas, the court explained to Qadirah the consequences of doing so. Qadirah was informed of and waived her rights to trial by jury, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to subpoena witnesses for her defense, to testify in her own defense, and her privilege against self-incrimination. In the written waiver of rights, Qadirah gave up her right to appeal her conviction, including the denial of any pretrial motions.
On December 21, 2015, the court suspended imposition of sentence and granted Qadirah formal probation for five years, with various terms and conditions. Qadirah filed a timely notice of appeal. In addition to checking the box indicating she appealed from “the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea,” she requested a certificate of probable cause, alleging religious discrimination in her prosecution, violation of due process, ineffective assistance of counsel, and coercion of her plea. Her request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
II. DISCUSSION
Qadirah’s attorney filed a brief on appeal without raising any specific issues, asking us to review the entire record to determine if any issues warrant briefing, as provided in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Qadirah was advised by her attorney that she could file a supplemental brief on her own behalf within 30 days after the Wende brief was filed. She did not file such a brief.
In order to challenge a judgment following a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel occurring prior to the plea, discriminatory prosecution, or the other matters Qadirah specified for appeal, she was required to obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court. (§ 1237.5, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) (Rule 8.304); In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 650–651; People v. McEwan (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 173, 177–178; People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 244–245 [ineffective assistance of counsel].) A defendant who has entered a guilty plea and has not obtained a certificate of probable cause may only appeal from (1) denial of a suppression motion, or (2) the sentence or other matters occurring after entry of the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. (Rule 8.304(b)(4)(B); People v. Vargas (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 644, 651.)
Qadirah did not make a suppression motion at trial; hence, her broad general waiver on the plea and waiver form imposed no greater restriction on her right to appeal than if she had not executed a waiver. “As a general proposition, a broad or general waiver, such as ‘I waive my appeal rights,’ will include error occurring prior to the waiver, but not subsequent error because the defendant could not make ‘a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal any unforeseen or unknown future error . . . .’ ” (In re Uriah R. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1157, quoting People v. Vargas (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1653, 1662; but see People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 82, 84 [if waiver spells out that defendant waives right to appeal from sentence, waiver is enforceable].)
The trial court’s denial of a certificate of probable cause made the appeal “inoperative” except as to matters occurring after entry of the plea. (Rule 8.304(b)(4)(B); Stubbs, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 245)). Accordingly, we do not believe we are required to conduct a full-record review for errors occurring prior to the plea. (Cf. People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188–1189 [appellate court should dismiss appeal that does not comply with section 1237.5].) Under the rationale of Wende, we should only be required to search the record for evidence supporting issues that Qadirah would be entitled to raise on appeal, namely, issues relating to denial of a suppression motion and matters occurring after entry of the plea that do not affect its validity. (See Rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).)
We have reviewed in a codefendant’s case the nearly 1,000-page preliminary hearing transcript for Wende purposes, and thus have, in effect, conducted a full-record review. For present purposes, we have focused specifically on any potentially meritorious issues that may have arisen after Qadirah’s pleas. We have found none. The grant of probation was as promised and the conditions of probation were reasonably related to Qadirah’s crimes. (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481.) We are satisfied Qadirah’s appellate attorney fully complied with counsel’s responsibilities. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.










_________________________
Streeter, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.


_________________________
Reardon, J.