P. v. Rose
Filed 5/31/06 P. v. Rose CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARLOS THOMAS ROSE, Defendant and Appellant. |
F049050
(Super. Ct. Nos. F04904961-0 & F04907734-8)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary Orozco, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
In case No. F04904961-0, appellant, Carlos Thomas Rose, pled no contest to petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666)[1] and admitted two prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On October 19, 2004, the court sentenced Rose to a four-year term, consisting of a two-year term on the substantive offense and 2 one-year prior prison term enhancements. The court then suspended execution of sentence and placed Rose on probation on condition that he serve one year in local custody and complete a long-term residential drug program.
On April 6, 2005, in case No. F04907734-8, Rose pled no contest to attempted grand theft (§§ 664/487, subd. (a)).
On May 4, 2005, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Rose on probation for three years.
On July 11, 2005, Rose admitted violating his probation in both cases.
On August 15, 2005, the court terminated probation in case Nos. F04907734-8 and F04904961-0 and sentenced appellant to the previously imposed four-year term.
Rose's appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Rose has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing. However, our review of the record disclosed that the court may have erred by its failure to award Rose presentence actual custody credit for time that Rose spent in a residential drug treatment program. On October 19, 2004, in case No. F04904961-0, when the court suspended execution of sentence, it placed Rose on five years' probation on condition that he serve a long-term commitment at the Victory Outreach Program, which apparently is a residential drug treatment program. Rose was apparently released to a representative from that group on October 20, 2004. However, by January 3, 2005, when Rose appeared before the court, he was no longer at the program.
At Rose's sentencing on August 15, 2005, the court did not award him any presentence actual custody credit for the time he spent at the Victory Outreach Program. This appears to be error, because â€
