People v. Reading CA2/4 ( 2024 )

Filed 5/31/24 P. v. Reading CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B330489
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. LA098537)
v.
MICHAEL S. READING,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Thomas Rubinson, Judge. Affirmed.
Sabrina R. Damast, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Michael S. Reading was charged by amended
information with one count of attempted second degree robbery
(Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211)1 and one count of making criminal
threats (§ 422). The information alleged five aggravating
circumstances (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1)-(5)), and that
defendant was convicted of two prior felonies for purposes of
section 1203, subdivision (e)(4).
A jury found defendant guilty of both counts. Pursuant to
the parties’ agreement, defendant admitted the aggravating
circumstance that he served a prior term in prison or county jail
under section 1170, subdivision (h) (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 4.421(b)(3)), and that he was convicted of the prior felonies.
The People dismissed the remaining aggravating circumstances.
At the probation and sentencing hearing, defendant moved
to reduce the criminal threats count to a misdemeanor. The court
granted the request. The court sentenced defendant to the
midterm of two years in state prison for the attempted robbery
and six months in county jail for making criminal threats, to run
concurrently with the prison sentence. The court awarded
defendant 156 days of custody credit, calculated as 136 days of
actual custody and 20 days of good time/work time credit.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.
Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to augment the record on
appeal with a minute order showing the trial court corrected
defendant’s presentence credits, which was granted. The trial
court noted the correct credits for defendant were 136 days of
actual custody and 136 days of good time/work time credit for a
total of 272 days.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
After reviewing the record, defendant’s court-appointed
counsel filed an opening brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436, asking this court to independently review the record.
On January 19, 2024, we directed defendant’s counsel to send
defendant the record and a copy of the opening brief, and we
notified defendant he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief
raising any contentions or arguments he wished this court to
consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that
no arguable issues exist. Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s
compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the
record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the
judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins
(2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,
109–110.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MORI, J.
We concur:
CURREY, P. J.
COLLINS, J.
3