P. v. Lee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/4/13  P. v. Lee 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.   KEVIN TERRELL LEE,               Defendant and Appellant.

E056763               (Super.Ct.No. RIF10003600)               OPINION

 

            APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Riverside
County.  Michael B.
Donner, Judge.  Affirmed with directions.

            John
F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

            No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Defendant
and appellant Kevin Terrell Lee pled guilty to href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">possession of methamphetamine for sale
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and admitted that he had suffered one prior
serious and violent felony strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667,
subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2(A)).  Defendant was subsequently sentenced to a
total term of six years in state prison with credit of 464 days for time
served.

            Approximately
one year later, in June 2012, defendant filed a petition to modify his
presentence custody credits pursuant to amended Penal Code section 4019, which
became operative on October 1, 2011.  The trial court summarily denied that
petition.      Defendant appeals from the
denial of his request to modify his presentence custody credits.  We find no error and affirm.  However, as pointed out by appellate counsel,
the abstract of judgment incorrectly notes that defendant was convicted by a
“jury,” rather than by a “plea,” and we will therefore order the abstract of
judgment amended accordingly.

Ihref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^[1]

DISCUSSION

            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 conduct an independent
review of the 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 independently reviewed the record
for potential error and find no arguable issues.

II

DISPOSITION

            The
superior court clerk is directed to correct the abstract of judgment filed August 3, 2011, to reflect that
defendant was convicted by a “plea,” and to forward a corrected copy of the
abstract of judgment to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.  In
all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

            NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

 

RAMIREZ                             

                                                P. J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

McKINSTER                        

                                             J.

 

 

CODRINGTON                    

                                             J.