P. v. Jackson
Filed 1/13/10 P. v. Jackson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. MELVIN CHARLES JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant. | E048100 (Super.Ct.No. RIF130553) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michele D. Levine, Judge. Affirmed.
Anita P. Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Melvin Charles Jackson pled guilty to one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)) in Riverside County Superior Court case No. RIF130553, on July 17, 2006. In exchange, the court imposed but suspended a two-year sentence in state prison and placed defendant on probation for three years, under certain conditions, including participation in a one-year Salvation Army program. On June 3, 2008, defendant admitted that he was in violation of two of his probation conditions (violate no law and report contact with law enforcement to probation officer), due to a criminal conviction in a new case, Riverside County Superior Court case No. RIF139469. The court imposed the previously suspended two-year term in the instant case and a concurrent 365 days in case No. RIF139469. With respect to presentence custody credits, the court referred the matter to the probation department for a report.
In a handwritten, ex-parte motion filed on January 23, 2009, defendant claimed he was entitled to 163 days of presentence custody credits (111 days of actual credit, plus 52 days of good/work time credits). At a hearing that same day, the court acknowledged receipt of defendants motion, as well as a memorandum from the probation department. After reviewing the memorandum, as well as defendants motion, the court awarded defendant presentence custody credits in the instant case as follows: 59 days for time served in a penal institution, 28 days of conduct credit, plus 42 days of credit for participation in the Salvation Army program, for a total of 129 days of credit. The court also awarded defendant 14 days of actual custody credit and six days of conduct credit, for a total of 20 days of credits in case No. RIF139469.
On March 12, 2009, defendant filed a notice of appeal indicating a challenge to the sentence or other matters occurring after the guilty plea. Defendant contended that he received only part of the presentence credits awarded to him by the court. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]
Defendant filed a handwritten motion dated March 10, 2009, requesting the court to apply all custody credits. He claimed that, since the court awarded him 129 days of custody credit in the instant case, and 20 days in case No. RIF13969, he should have received a total of 149 days of custody credits. However, the record reflected only 129 days of credit. At a hearing on the motion, the court reviewed and denied defendants motion. The court stated that defendant was sentenced in the instant case and received 129 days of credit pursuant to the probation memo dated January 8, 2009. The court held that defendant was not eligible to receive the same credits in case No. RIF139469. In that matter, he received 20 days of credit; his sentence was ordered to run concurrently to his sentence in the instant case, to be served in any penal institution.
On June 30, 2009, defendants appellate counsel wrote a letter to the trial court requesting that the court modify the custody credits. The letter was not made a part of the appellate record. In response to the letter, on September 4, 2009, the court modified the custody credits award to include 69 days of credit for actual days served, plus 34 days of conduct credit, plus 42 days for time served in the Salvation Army program, for a total of 145 days of credit. The court also ordered an amended abstract of judgment to be prepared to reflect the correction.
DISCUSSION
Dependant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and one potential arguable issuethe question of whether defendant was entitled to the 163 days of presentence custody credits he originally claimed. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record. We have found no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
GAUT
J.
KING
J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Because this is an appeal from the award of presentence custody credits, it is unnecessary to include the factual basis for the underlying plea.
