filed:

Filed: 1/29/15 P. v. Serrato CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B256341

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA127140 ) v.

JAMISON SERRATO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Peter Paul Espinoza, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant, Jamison Serrato, appeals after he pled no contest to a single identity theft count. (Pen. Code, § 530, subd. (c)(5).) He admitted he had previously been convicted of a serious felony. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) The evidence indicated defendant, a gang member, was stopped by sheriff’s deputies while he was subject to a probation check. He dropped a knife when confronted by the deputies. Inside his wallet were driver’s licenses with defendant’s picture but other persons’ names. In his residence was extensive evidence of identity theft-related conduct. An ensuing investigation disclosed defendant secured two online credit accounts using the name Ryan Tellez and purchases were attempted or completed at various stores. As part of a plea bargain, five counts were dismissed along with four Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison term allegations. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 16 months with appropriate credit for time served and imposition of mandatory fines and assessments. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on this appeal. After examining the record, appointed appellate counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. Instead, appointed appellate counsel requested that this court independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284.) On September 10, 2014, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. On September 18, 2014, defendant filed a letter brief raising several issues. First, defendant contends the trial court agreed to impose a 16-month sentence consecutive to defendant’s existing case No. VA112654. That is precisely the sentence the trial court imposed. According to defendant, he was “paroled on that case prior to being sentenced on the present case,” but that is a matter of no legal consequence. Second, defendant takes issue with a statement in the Wende brief filed in this case. Appointed appellate counsel there stated; “A 1996 conviction for assault and a 1999 conviction for robbery were alleged as prior ‘strikes.’” Defendant claims the 1999 conviction was for “grand theft personal property,” not robbery; moreover, grand theft personal property is not a