P. v. Palmer
Filed 4/22/13 P. v. Palmer CA2/2
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
FRANK WILLIAM PALMER,
Defendant
and Appellant.
B244167
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. KA092597)
THE COURT:
Defendant
and appellant Frank William Palmer (defendant) appeals from the denial of his
postjudgment motion to increase his award of presentence custody credit. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant
to People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende),
raising no issues and requesting a court review of the record. On December
18, 2012, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him
leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or
argument he might wish to have considered.
That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter.
We have reviewed the entire record and as we have found no error or
In an
eight-count amended information defendant was charged with seven felonies and
one misdemeanor, all committed in August 2010.
The information alleged for purposes of Penal Code section 667.5,
subdivision (b),
title="">[1] that defendant had suffered eight prior felony
convictions and prison terms. Pursuant
to a plea agreement under which defendant would be sentenced to eight years in
prison, defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to first degree residential
burglary in violation of section 459, as alleged in count 1, and to unlawfully
driving or taking an automobile with a prior conviction, in violation of
section 666.5, as alleged in count 5. In
addition, defendant admitted four prior felony convictions.
On May 10, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to
the agreed upon eight years in prison, imposed mandatory fines and fees, and
awarded defendant 342 days of presentence custody credit, consisting of 228
actual days in custody and 114 conduct credits.
The remaining counts were dismissed.
In July 2012, defendant filed a motion to increase the
number of conduct credits to 228, a number equal to the actual days in
custody. The trial court found that
defendant was not entitled to conduct credit equal to 100 percent of actual
time in custody, based upon the law in effect on the date of his offense;
custody time had not been calculated correctly, and that he should have been
given 259 days. The trial court thus
granted relief by correcting the judgment to reflect 259 days of actual custody
and 128 days of conduct credit for a total of 387 days of presentence custody
credit. An amended abstract of judgment
was issued to reflect the correction.
The
following month defendant filed another motion to correct the award, again
requesting conduct credits equaling 100 percent of his actual presentence time
in custody. The trial court found the
motion to be identical to the motion filed and denied in July 2012. The court nevertheless considered the renewed
motion and it was denied. Defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal from
the denial of his second motion.
We
conclude that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the
record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment
entered against him in this case. (
259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
