P. v. Hartman

Filed 2/7/07  P. v. Hartman CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

            APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Barry Taylor, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________

            Stephen Eugene Hartman appeals the denial of his motion, filed in propria persona, to correct the custody credits awarded by the trial court.  His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues.  He was notified that he could file his own brief, and has not done so.

            From our review of the record, we are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities, and no arguable issues exist for counsel to raise.  (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)  We reach that conclusion from these facts:

            According to the probation report, appellant was arrested on May 10, 2005.  On September 7, 2005, pursuant to a plea bargain, he pled no contest to receiving stolen property and eluding a pursuing peace officer, plus one prior strike conviction and two prior prison terms.  That same day, he received a second strike sentence of 56 months in state prison.  The sentence included 181 days of presentence credit, based on 121 days of actual confinement and 60 days of conduct credit.

            In the motion to correct credits, appellant complains:  â€