Filed 8/24/17 P. v. Westbrook CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JONATHAN ARTHUR WESTBROOK,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
(Super. Ct. No. 2060346)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Dawna Reeves, Judge.
Mark J. Shusted, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Jonathan Arthur Westbrook pled no contest to unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and admitted that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)).[1] Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 29, 2016, officers from the Stanislaus County Auto Task Force found a stolen Hyundai parked on the street. During surveillance of the car, Westbrook was observed getting into it and driving away. Westbrook was arrested later that day.
On March 2, 2016, the Stanislaus County District Attorney filed a complaint that in addition to charging Westbrook with the offense and Three Strikes allegation he pled to, also charged him with two prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On April 12, 2016, Westbrook entered his no contest plea to the unlawfully taking a vehicle offense and admitted the prior strike allegation in exchange for the court striking the two prior prison term enhancements and a stipulated term of four years. The court then granted the prosecutor’s motion to strike the two prior prison term enhancements and it sentenced Westbrook to a doubled middle term of four years. On May 10, 2016, the court awarded Westbrook 141 days of presentence custody credits consisting of 71 days of presentence actual custody credits and 70 days of presentence conduct credits.
On September 13, 2016, in response to appellate counsel’s trial court motion to correct credits, the court advised counsel it increased Westbrook’s presentence custody credits to 144 days, 72 days of actual custody credits and 72 days of presentence conduct credits and that it would be issuing an amended abstract of judgment.
Westbrook’s appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Westbrook has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
