Opinion
B329832
02-08-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BYRON RAMON LOPEZ, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Bruce A. Young, Judge Superior Court County of Ventura Super. Ct. No. 2021008801
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CODY, J.
Byron Ramon Lopez pleaded guilty to two counts of grand theft for stealing catalytic converters in Camarillo. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to an agreed term of sixteen months in state prison, running concurrently with sentences he was already serving for convictions on similar charges in Kern, Los Angeles, and San Diego counties. The court awarded him six days actual presentence credits and six days of local conduct credits. It denied his request for additional credits for time in custody after sentencing in another matter. He appealed the denial. The trial court issued a certificate of probable cause and scheduled a credit review hearing at which it would revisit the issue. It requested the Department of Probation submit "a more detailed memorandum confirming the credits allocated between [the] Los Angeles County cases and [the] Ventura County case."
The facts are derived from the probation report because appellant pleaded guilty to both counts charged.
The trial court held the credit review hearing while this appeal was pending. It declined appellant's request for additional credits in an order dated October 10, 2023. Two days later it denied a related habeas petition. Appellant does not separately challenge these rulings in this appeal.
The record does not contain the supplemental probation report received by the trial court, appellant's habeas petition, or any reporter's transcripts or minute orders after June 21. We take judicial notice of the trial court's minute orders of July 26, 2023, September 9, 2023, October 10, 2023, and October 12, 2023 on our own motion. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c), (h).)
We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. We advised appellant on December 1, 2023 that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We received no response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's counsel fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P. J. BALTODANO, J.