People v. Wells CA2/6

Filed 8/12/14 P. v. Wells CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B252551 (Super. Ct. No. F487081) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

CANDY LEE WELLS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Candy Lee Wells pled no contest to fraudulently offering securities for sale (Corp. Code, § 25541), selling securities without being qualified (id., §§ 25110, 25540), and three counts of selling securities through the use of false statements (id., § 25401). Wells also admitted the special allegations that she engaged in a pattern of felony conduct that resulted in the loss to others of more than $500,000 (Pen. Code, § 186.11, subd. (a)(2)) and that she took property in excess of $1.3 million (id., 12022.6, subd. (a)(3)). The court sentenced Wells to a five-year county jail term consisting of concurrent three-year terms on the substantive counts and a consecutive two-years on the Penal Code section 186.11, subdivision (a)(2) enhancement. The court stayed a three-year term on the Penal Code section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(3)

enhancement. The court gave Wells credit for 193 days actual time and 193 days conduct credit for a total of 386 days. The court also imposed restitution fines and other fees. Wells appeals. We appointed counsel to represent Wells in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record he filed a brief raising no issues. On March 13, 2014, counsel wrote to Wells informing her she had 30 days to submit to us any issues or contentions she wished to raise on appeal. Wells has made no such submission. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Wells' counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities, and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment (order) is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.