Opinion
E068431
11-06-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL CORREA, Defendant and Appellant.
Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. 16CR000070) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Dwight W. Moore, Judge. Affirmed. Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Daniel Correa pled guilty to first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, count 1) and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, count 2). In accordance with the plea agreement, a trial court withheld pronouncement of judgment on count 1 and placed him on formal probation for a period of three years. The court sentenced him to a terminal disposition of 180 days in county jail on count 2. Subsequently, defendant admitted that he violated his probation. The court sentenced him to six years in state prison, but then suspended imposition of the sentence and placed him back on probation. Defendant was later ordered into treatment at a residential facility due to his use of alcohol. He subsequently admitted violating his probation again. The court revoked his probation and ordered the previously suspended sentence imposed. The court awarded a total of 629 days of credit for time served.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with, and pled guilty to, first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377).
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and one potential arguable issue: whether defendant was entitled to conduct credits for time spent in a residential treatment facility. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant 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 conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. CODRINGTON
J.