Filed 6/27/17 P. v. Jones 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

RICO RASHABB JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073386

(Super. Ct. No. 15CR02585)


OPINION


THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-


Pursuant to a plea agreement, Rico Rashabb Jones (Jones) pled guilty to second degree vehicular burglary in exchange for a 16-month sentence to run concurrent to various other cases. Jones was sentenced to the agreed-upon term.
Appellate counsel failed to identify any arguable issues in the case. Our independent review of the record also failed to identify any issues. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The complaint charged Jones with second degree vehicle burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459, and receiving stolen property in violation of section 496, subdivision (a). Each count also alleged Jones had served four prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
The police reports, which are incorporated in the record, reveal the victim’s vehicle was broken into and her purse stolen. A diamond wedding ring was in the purse when it was stolen. Fingerprints obtained from the victim’s vehicle were matched by the California Department of Justice to Jones. Deputies subsequently recovered the ring from a pawn shop. The person who sold the ring to the pawn shop was identified through fingerprints as Jones.
Jones entered into a plea agreement and signed a “Felony Advisement of Rights, Waiver and Plea Form.” In this agreement, Jones agreed to plead guilty to one count of second degree vehicle burglary. The parties agreed Jones would be sentenced to a term of 16 months in prison, which was to be served concurrent to the sentence imposed in a companion case. The remaining counts and enhancements were to be dismissed. The form advised Jones of his trial rights, which he agreed to waive.
At the plea hearing, the trial court confirmed Jones understood the plea form, and that he was waiving his trial rights. Jones then entered his plea of guilty and was sentenced consistent with the terms of the plea agreement.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asserting that after a thorough review of the record, he could not identify any arguable issues. By letter dated August 12, 2016, we invited Jones to inform this court of any issues he wished us to address. Jones did not respond to our letter.
After thoroughly reviewing the file, we agree with appellate counsel that there are no arguable issues in this case. Jones entered into a favorable plea agreement. The only possible issue relates to the calculation of credits for pretrial custody. Defense counsel presented a unique argument in an attempt to obtain greater custody credits. The calculations made by the trial court appear correct, and we are not aware of any authority for the arguments made by defense counsel.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.