People v. Walker CA4/2 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/14/14 P. v. Walker CA4/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                       E058875
    v.                                                                       (Super.Ct.No. SWF1201750)
    RANAIER LEE WALKER,                                                      OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Elaine M. Johnson,
    Judge. Affirmed.
    Patricia Ihara, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Defendant and appellant Ranaier Lee Walker appeals after the trial court revoked
    his probation and imposed a stipulated term of imprisonment. We affirm.
    1
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    In August 2012, the Riverside County District Attorney filed a felony complaint
    alleging two counts of unlawful taking or driving of a motor vehicle (Veh. Code,
    § 10851, subd. (a)), and one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)).
    At an early stage of the proceedings, defendant elected to plead guilty to count 1
    (one of the vehicle theft counts) and count 3 (grand theft). Count 2 was dismissed in the
    interest of justice. Defendant was granted formal probation for 36 months on specified
    terms and conditions. Among other conditions, defendant was committed to the custody
    of the sheriff for 150 days. Defendant was awarded credit under Penal Code section 4019
    for 11 actual days and 10 conduct credit days, for a total of 21 days against his 150-day
    commitment. Defendant therefore owed a net time of 129 days to be served in the
    Sheriff’s Labor Program. The plea agreement specified that, should probation be revoked
    and sentence imposed, the maximum possible custody time for the admitted charges was
    three years eight months imprisonment.
    On January 17, 2013, the prosecutor filed a petition for hearing on an alleged
    violation of probation because defendant failed to appear to start serving his 129 days.
    The court revoked defendant’s probation pending the violation hearing. Eventually,
    defendant admitted the violation of probation, and the court reinstated him on probation,
    on much the same terms and conditions as before, although with an additional term of
    215 days in custody.
    2
    In February 2013, the prosecutor filed another petition for hearing on violation of
    probation because defendant had failed a drug test and failed to comply with other
    aspects of his supervised probation. The court ordered defendant’s probation revoked
    pending the hearing. Defendant again admitted the probation violation. The court
    this time did not reinstate probation, but instead vacated the grant of probation and
    imposed a county jail sentence of three years (aggravated term) on count 1 and eight
    months (one-third the middle term) on count 2, to run consecutively to count 1. The
    court determined that defendant had served presentence time of 70 days, and awarded an
    additional 70 days of conduct credits, for a total of 140 days credit against his sentence.
    Defendant filed a notice of appeal.
    ANALYSIS
    This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on his appeal. Counsel has
    now filed a brief under authority of People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    and Anders v.
    California (1967) 
    386 U.S. 738
    [
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    ], setting forth a brief
    summary of the facts and procedural history, but raising no substantive issues. Counsel
    has requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
    Defendant has been offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief,
    which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal. 4th 106
    , we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues.
    The only matters that appointed counsel suggested as possible arguable issues
    were whether the trial court properly calculated defendant’s presentence credits, and
    3
    whether defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights and the consequences
    of his plea before he pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 3.
    The trial court correctly awarded defendant one-for-one presentence custody
    credits under Penal Code section 4019; defendant received 70 days of actual custody
    credit and 70 days of conduct custody credit. The record also shows that the trial court
    made a full inquiry into defendant’s advisements and his understanding of those
    advisements.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
    McKINSTER
    J.
    We concur:
    HOLLENHORST
    Acting P. J.
    KING
    J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E058875

Filed Date: 1/14/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021