P. v. Edwards










Filed 3/21/17 P. v. Edwards 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JERUN TYRONE EDWARDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

B278110

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. KA103944)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Wade Olson, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________
Defendant Jerun Tyrone Edwards appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to modify his credit for time served. Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) requesting we independently review the entire record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. We notified defendant he could independently brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted this court to consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief. We conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal and defendant’s appointed counsel has satisfied his responsibilities under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm the order from which defendant appeals.

BACKGROUND

On April 7, 2014, defendant entered a no contest plea to unlawful driving or taking a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Defendant admitted he served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court imposed and suspended a four-year sentence in county jail, placed defendant on three years’ formal probation, and ordered him to serve 244 days in the county jail with credit for 244 days.
On May 16, 2016, pursuant to defendant’s Penal Code section 1203.2a request for disposition, the trial court revoked his probation and imposed the previously suspended four-year sentence. The court found defendant was serving a sentence in Nevada for a subsequent offense. The trial court ordered, “The sentence imposed . . . is to run concurrent with any other sentence the defendant is serving and may be served in any local, state, or federal penal institution.” The trial court credited defendant with the 244 days previously served, 81 days of additional custody credit and 81 days of conduct credit.
In August 2016, defendant filed two motions seeking additional credit against his sentence, both of which were denied. Defendant’s appeal is from the order denying the second of the two motions. The trial court ruled: “Defendant’s motion/request is denied for the following reasons(s) [¶] 1) There is no substantial right the defendant is attempting to enforce. [¶] 2) Defendant’s sentence is pursuant to an agreed-upon disposition between the defense and the People. [¶] 3) Defendant received custody credits of 406 days in this matter and 4 year sentence in this case was ordered to run concurrent to any other time defendant was presently serving.” The trial court concluded, “The defendant was given the proper custody credits.”

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we examined the record concerning defendant’s motion to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. Based on that independent review, we have determined there are no arguable issues on appeal because defendant has not shown he is entitled to any additional credit. Defendant’s appointed counsel has fully satisfied his responsibilities under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.

DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant’s motion for additional credit against his sentence is affirmed.


KUMAR, J.*
We concur:


TURNER, P.J.


KRIEGLER, J.



Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com



* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.