P. v. Taylor

Filed 7/31/06 P. v. Taylor CA 4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

PATRICIA ANN TAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

E039355

(Super.Ct.No. RIF127035)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kenneth Fernandez, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Raquel M. Gonzalez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Angela M. Borzachillo, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Patricia Taylor (defendant) pled guilty to possession of cocaine for sale. The trial court sentenced her to two years pursuant to a written plea agreement. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying her request for two days of presentence custody credits. In support of her contention, defendant has filed a request for judicial notice of documents. For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment and deny defendant's request for judicial notice.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 15, 2005, a felony complaint charged defendant with one count of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine base, for purposes of sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. During settlement negotiations, the prosecution agreed to amend the complaint to add count 2--possession of a controlled substance for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351. On November 16, 2005, defendant entered a plea of guilty to count 2. Subsequently, on the prosecution's motion, the court dismissed count 1.

Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of two years in state prison, and awarded defendant five days of actual custody credits. Defense counsel, however, argued that defendant was entitled to an additional two days of conduct credits under Penal Code^[1] section 4019. Following a hearing, the trial court denied defendant's request for conduct credits. Defendant appeals.

DISCUSSION

A. The Trial Court Properly Denied Defendant's Request for Conduct Credits

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her two days of conduct credits under section 4019. Section 4019 states as follows:

â€

Description	A crimnal law decision regarding possession of cocaine for sale.Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying her request for two days of presentence custody credits. In support of her contention, defendant has filed a request for judicial notice of documents. Courtshall affirm the judgment and deny defendant's request for judicial notice.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.