The People v. Wright CA3

Filed 8/29/13 P. v. Wright CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C073090

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 10F6248, 10F7073, 11F1297, 11F2428 ASHLEY MORGAN WRIGHT, & 12F6438)

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Ashley Morgan Wright asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

1

I Shasta County Superior Court, Case No. 11F2428 In August 2009, law enforcement responded to Frank Middleton’s report of a residential burglary, during which Middleton’s credit cards were stolen. Middleton explained that while he was away on vacation, his credit card company notified him that his cards had been used for purchases totaling $500 at four different Safeway locations in the prior 12 hours. Middleton checked where he kept his credit cards and saw that two of his credit cards were missing. Middleton later learned that defendant used his credit cards to pay her utility bills. After getting defendant’s name from an employee for the utility company, law enforcement reviewed surveillance tapes from the Safeway stores where Middleton’s cards had been used and identified defendant as the person using the cards. Defendant was charged on April 20, 2011, with unauthorized use of personal identifying information (Pen. Code, § 530.5)1 and two counts of second degree burglary (§ 459).

Shasta County Superior Court, Case No. 11F1297 On September 4, 2009, defendant’s aunt, Cynthia Lamkin, told the police that she sold a vehicle to defendant. Inside the vehicle was a partial booklet of personal checks that belonged to Cynthia’s daughter, Katie Lamkin. Defendant used those checks, forging Katie’s name, to acquire approximately $813.63. On March 8, 2011, defendant was charged with the unauthorized use of personal identifying information (§ 530.5), forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)), forgery of a completed check (§ 475, subd. (c)), and receiving stolen property (§ 496).