Filed 10/22/18 P. v. Depperschmidt 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
STEVEN PETER DEPPERSCHMIDT,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
E070512
(Super.Ct.No. BAF1800007)
OPINION
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark E. Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.
Stephen Peter Depperschmidt, in pro. per.; and James M. Kehoe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 2, 2018, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Steven Peter Depperschmidt with willfully and unlawfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon Jane Doe under Penal Code[1] section 273.5, subdivision (f)(1), a felony (count 1). The complaint also alleged that defendant was convicted of the crime of spousal abuse, a felony, in violation of section 273.5, subdivision (f), and that he served a term in state prison for said offense and did not remain free of prison custody for, and did commit an offense resulting in a felony conviction during, a period of five years subsequent to the conclusion of said term, within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The complaint further alleged that defendant was convicted of two serious and violent felonies within the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (c) and (e)(2)(A), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2)(a).
On March 20, 2018, defendant pled guilty to count 1, willfully and unlawfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon Jane Doe, and admitted the strike prior and prison prior. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant agreed to admit the prior prison term. The court had defendant plead guilty to count 1 and admit the prior felony strike; the prosecutor caught the error and the court elicited defendant’s admission to the prison prior. Thereafter, the court sentenced defendant to five years in state prison as follows: the low term of two years, doubled to four years for the strike prior, plus an additional year for the prison prior. The court awarded credits and imposed fines and fees.
On May 7, 2018, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause; the court denied defendant’s request on May 8, 2018. On May 14, 2018, defendant filed a “2nd” notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause; the trial court granted defendant’s request on May 15, 2018.
DISCUSSION
After defendant 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, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. Defendant filed a three-page handwritten brief with attached exhibits.[2] In his brief, defendant states that he “expressly does not want to withdraw his plea and waives personal appearance.” Instead, defendant argues, “because the terms of the plea are not being fullfilled [sic] by the state, [defendant] is entitled to relief.” Further, “[t]he state is not fulfilling the terms, and is not giveing [sic] petitioner halftime credit while in state custody.” There is nothing in defendant’s attached exhibits nor in the record to indicate that this issue has been addressed in the trial court. It appears that defendant is asking this court for the first time on appeal, to investigate whether he is receiving the appropriate custody credits. In support of his brief, defendant attached a Sacramento trial court’s order dated April 20, 2017, titled “postjudgment motion re: to amend abstract—order” in People v. Kenneth Harris, Sacramento superior court case No. 96F01976. This order by a Sacramento superior court in an unrelated case does not assist defendant in his claim on appeal. In fact, just as the defendant did in People v. Harris, defendant, in this case, must first file a motion in the trial court to request amending his sentence before defendant can ask this court to review a ruling on such a motion. Moreover, nothing in defendant’s supplemental brief or his exhibits indicate how and/or why his custody credits should be amended. Therefore, we find no merit to defendant’s arguments.
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 error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
P. J.
RAPHAEL
J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
[2] Defendant has requested that we take judicial notice of his exhibits under Evidence Code sections 451 and 452. We hereby grant defendant’s request.
