P. v. Beets

Filed 9/28/06 P. v. Beets CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

I. INTRODUCTION

After a plea of no contest to one count of embezzlement (Pen. Code, §§ 508/487), the court found appellant guilty of that count and sentenced him to the lower term of 16 months in state prison. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and then a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asking that this court review the record and determine if there are any issues in the case that deserve further briefing. We have done so, find none, and hence affirm the judgment.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In September 2000, appellant was employed by a San Carlos manufacturing firm known as Air Conditioning Company, Inc. (ACCO). Sometime in early September 2000, Beets disappeared with one of the company’s trucks. Shortly after this was reported to the San Carlos police, a member of Beets’ family called ACCO and stated that appellant was in a rehabilitation center in Glendale, but would return the truck on September 15. However, shortly thereafter, Beets apparently used a company credit card to purchase air conditioning units in Southern California, and did not return the truck.

The truck was found in Glendale on September 14, 2000, albeit with extensive damage to it; the company also discovered that appellant had charged over $2,000 on company gas credit cards, over $250 on company telephone cards, and either sold or pawned tools that had been in the truck valued at over $3,000. The company and the police subsequently learned that appellant had apparently done the same sorts of things to employers in Atlanta, Georgia, and Raleigh, North Carolina. In April 2001, appellant’s fingerprints were identified as those on relevant pawn slips recovered by the police.

In August 2001, an original complaint was filed against appellant by the San Mateo District Attorney’s office. The complaint charged vehicle theft as count one (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and embezzlement under the previously-cited sections as count two. An amended complaint to the same effect was filed in August 2004, and another arrest warrant issued. At that point in time, the police were seeking to extradite appellant from Louisiana. Appellant was, later, extradited and placed under arrest.

On October 26, 2005, appellant, who was represented by counsel, pled no contest to count two; in accordance with a plea arrangement, count one was dismissed. The court imposed the lower term of 16 months with 49 days of presentence credits, and restitution fines under Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b), and 1202.45.

Appellant filed a hand-written notice of appeal on November 15, 2005, appealing from “incidents prior to and after the pleas” but not “the conviction itself.” No certificate of probable cause was either sought or obtained. (See Pen. Code, § 1237.5 and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)

III. DISCUSSION

Because of appellant’s plea of no contest and the lack of any certificate of probable cause, our review is, pursuant to the clear mandates of Penal Code section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 30(b), limited to the 16 month prison sentence and restitution fines imposed on appellant.^[1] The prison sentence was, as noted, the lower term, and appellant----again, represented by counsel at his sentencing hearing----confirmed to the court that he understood that the maximum sentence for the crime to which he had pled no contest was three years and the restitution fines much higher than those ultimately imposed.

Appellant clearly waived all his rights in the course of the sentencing hearing and we find no error, nor even any issue requiring further briefing, in connection with appellant’s sentencing hearing and the sentence imposed.

IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Haerle, Acting P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Lambden, J.

_________________________

Richman, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.

^[1] There was no Penal Code section 1538.5 motion brought in this case, so that exception to this statute and rule is inapplicable.