Filed 10/16/17 P. v. Pearce 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
NATHAN ARON PEARCE,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
(Super. Ct. No. MCR053219)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Joseph A. Soldani, Judge.
Kyle D. Smith, 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 counsel for appellant Nathan Aron Pearce filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asserting that after reviewing the record he could not find any arguable issues. We agree there are no arguable issues in the case and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 19, 2016, the Madera County District Attorney filed a complaint charging appellant as follows: count 1, burglary (Pen. Code, § 459);[1] count 2, grand theft (§ 487a); and count 3, obtaining motor vehicle known to be stolen (§ 496d, subd. (a)). Appellant pled no contest to one count of second degree burglary.
On March 18, 2016, defense counsel announced that appellant was going to plead guilty to count 1, second degree burglary, with the understanding that appellant will receive a low term lid of 16 months. The remaining counts were to be dismissed. On April 15, 2016, the court sentenced appellant according to the plea agreement. The term was ordered to be served concurrently with a 16-month term in an unrelated case, case No. MCR53095C. The court awarded appellant 65 days of custody credits: 33 days of actual custody credit and 32 days of conduct credit.
On May 13, 2016, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant did not request a certificate of probable cause.
On November 14, 2016, appellant’s counsel filed in this court a copy of a letter he had filed in the Madera County Superior Court asking that the superior court correct the record in regard to the calculation of presentence custody credits.
On January 5, 2017, the trial court amended its sentencing order to grant appellant a total of 85 days of custody credits: 43 days of actual custody credit and 42 days of conduct credit.
On January 19, 2017, pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appellate counsel filed appellant’s opening brief requesting this court independently review the entire record on appeal. On that same date, this court sent a letter to appellant, advising him of his right to submit a letter stating any grounds on appeal that he wants this court to consider. Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appellant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
