P. v. Green
Filed 8/7/12 P. v. Green CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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>
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
GARY WAYNE GREEN,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E055302
(Super.Ct.No.
RIF1102754)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior
Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Riverside
County. Richard Todd
Fields, Judge. Affirmed.
Howard Cohen, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On
June 27, 2011,
a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Gary Wayne Green with href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">theft under Penal Codehref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] section 484, a felony (count 1). The complaint also alleged two prior prison
term enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The complaint further alleged that defendant
had been convicted of a serious and violent felony within the meaning of
sections 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1).
On
October 27, 2011, defendant pled guilty to count 1 and admitted the strike allegation. The complaint formed the factual basis for
defendant’s guilty plea. The parties
agreed that defendant would be sentenced to the low term of 16 months, doubled
under the three strikes law for a total of 32 months. The trial court sentenced defendant to the
agreed-upon term of 32 months and dismissed the prior term allegations.
Thereafter,
the trial court imposed various fines and fees, and awarded defendant custody
credits of actual time of 14 days and six days under section 4019.
On
December 27, 2011, defendant filed his notice of
appeal.
On
April 30, 2012,
defendant, in propria persona, wrote
to the superior court seeking a lesser sentence; the court denied the motion on
May 10, 2012. On April 24, 2012, appellate counsel sent a motion to correct
section 4019 credits to increase half-time credits to one-for-one credits. The trial court did not rule on this
motion. On May 23, 2012, appellate counsel filed a request to
augment the record to include defendant’s letter and the motion. On June 4, 2012, we granted defendant’s request and the
documents were deemed a part of the record on appeal. Moreover, we noted that the “Motion for
Day-for-Day Credits” did not appear on the trial court’s website as having been
received. We directed the clerk of this
court to make a copy of the motion and to transmit the copy to the superior
court clerk’s office. We directed the
superior court clerk to forward the motion to the Honorable Richard
Fields. We then requested Judge Fields
to rule on the motion and provide this court and appellate counsel a
supplemental record on appeal containing the ruling. On June 12, 2012, the trial court filed a supplemental
clerk’s transcript containing the minute order on the day-for-day motion. The trial court denied the motion.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant
did willfully and unlawfully steal and take personal property of another, i.e.,
miscellaneous property of K-Mart, and had been convicted three or more times of
the crime of theft. For each of these
offenses, defendant served time in custody.
Defendant also sustained a conviction for burglary of a habitation in the
State of Texas in 1994.
ANALYSIS
After
defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief
under the authority of href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
and Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and
potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of
the entire record.
We
offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant
to the mandate of People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record
and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MCKINSTER
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting
P. J.
KING
J.
id=ftn1>
href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All statutory references are
to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.


