P. v. McCree
Filed 3/20/07 P. v. McCree CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM EUGENE MCCREE, Defendant and Appellant. | B189493 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA064804) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark G. Nelson, Judge, and Phyllis Shibata, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
William Eugene McCree appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to two counts of second degree commercial burglary, counts 1 and 7 (Pen. Code, 459), two counts of forgery, counts 2 and 8 (Pen. Code, 470, subd. (d)), two counts of forgery, counts 4 and 10 (Pen. Code, 484f, subd. (a)), false personation, count 3 (Pen. Code, 529), two counts of identity theft, counts 5 and 6 (Pen. Code, 530.5, subd. (a)) and one count of possession of a forged drivers license, count 9 (Pen. Code, 470b).[1] Pursuant to his plea, he was sentenced to prison for five years, consisting of the upper term of three years for count 1and three consecutive 8-month terms for counts 3, 6 and 7. Sentences on the remaining counts were ordered stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. He requested a certificate of probable cause, claiming he wished to withdraw his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. His request was denied.
On January 21, 2004, when appellant pled to all counts, he did so with the understanding he would return to court at a later date and be sentenced to 16 months in prison. He understood if he did not return, he would be sentenced to the maximum, which would be eight years.[2] The court took a Cruz[3] waiver and appellant waived time for sentencing until March 25, 2004, plus five court days thereafter.
On March 25, 2004, appellant failed to appear in court, and a bench warrant was issued. On December 12, 2005, appellant appeared in court, having been picked up on the bench warrant that day, and was ordered to appear on the next court date.
On December 30, 2005, appellant appeared in court for sentencing and agreed that an appropriate sentence had been worked out. The court stated it was sentencing appellant to the upper term of three years for count 1, second degree burglary, based on an agreement between parties and appellants prior criminal history. As to counts 3, 6 and 7, appellant was sentenced to one-third the middle term, a total of eight months on each count, based on the agreement between the parties and that the counts reflected a separate incident. Pursuant to the agreement, sentence on the remaining counts was ordered stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. It was stipulated that appellant was entitled to 521 actual days of credit plus 260 days of conduct credit for a total of 781 days.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On December 6, 2006, 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 no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN, P. J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
[1] According to the probation report, on January 5, 2004, appellant entered a local Washington Mutual Bank and attempted to cash a completed check in the amount of $4,500 using a counterfeit drivers license. Noting that the drivers license and check were both in the name of Derrol Elliott, bank officials contacted the account holder, who described himself as a male White, and further advised officials that no one had permission to have or use his personal information for any reason, specifically to cash a check. Noting that the defendants picture, that of a male Black, was on the drivers license, bank officials suspected fraud and contacted West Covina police officials, who proceeded to the bank and arrested the defendant. The defendant also possessed a fraudulent access card in the name of victim Derrol Elliott.
[2] At the time of his plea, the maximum sentence was calculated at eight years, but at the time of sentencing it was recalculated at five years.
[3]People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247.
