P. v. Shanes
Filed 10/3/06 P. v. Shanes CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. ALLEN DWAYNE SHANES, Defendant and Appellant.
|
F049584
(Super. Ct. No. 1079331)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Hurl Johnson, 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-
Appellant, Allen Dwayne Shanes, pled guilty on February 15, 2005, to one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). Shanes admitted a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The parties agreed to a stipulated sentence of three years for the burglary conviction plus one year for the enhancement. The trial court imposed the stipulated sentence on March 24, 2005, imposing a restitution fine and direct victim restitution. The court further granted appellant 122 days of custody credits..
On May 18, 2006, counsel for appellant sent a letter to the trial court seeking a modification of the time credits based on a memorandum from the probation department setting forth that appellant had 90 days of actual custody credits and 44 days of conduct credits for total custody credits of 134 days. On May 30, 2006, the trial court prepared an amended abstract of judgment reflecting that appellant had 134 days of custody credits prior to being sentenced.
Shanes’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Shanes was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on June 22, 2006, we invited Shanes to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Dawson, J.
