P. v. Monte
Filed 5/5/06 P. v. Monte CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY CHARLES MONTE, Defendant and Appellant. | G035953 (Super. Ct. No. 04NF2190) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kelly MacEachern, Judge. Affirmed.
Dennis L. Cava, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Anthony Charles Monte contends the court erred by failing to award him presentence custody credit. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
On June 16, 2004, Monte entered Money Mart with a forged, stolen check. Two days later, a complaint charged Monte with forgery (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (a))[1], possession of forged instrument (§ 475, subd. (a)), second degree commercial burglary (§ 459-460, subd. (b)), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), (collectively referred to as the forgery offenses), and three prior convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). At a Monte's arraignment on June 18, the court set bail on the charges at $50,000. The court also advised Monte he had a probation violation on a previous case (04NF0303) and set â€
