Opinion
B327561
12-07-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SCOTT JAMES ALEXANDER, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LA096041, Alan K. Schneider, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
MARTINEZ, J.
Scott Alexander was convicted pursuant to a plea of no contest of second degree burglary of a motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459) and driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Alexander appeals from the judgment and challenges the trial court's calculation of presentence credits. No arguable issues have been identified following review of the record by appointed appellate counsel or our own independent review. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
According to the probation report, Alexander stole a pickup truck on May 15, 2021. On June 1, 2021 Alexander took a backpack from a different vehicle by smashing the window. Police officers located Alexander and the pickup truck on June 29, 2021 and arrested him.
On October 3, 2022 Alexander was charged by information with second degree burglary of a motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459) and driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Following advisement and waiver of his constitutional rights, Alexander pleaded no contest to the charges on December 7, 2022. The trial court sentenced Alexander to concurrent sentences of eight months on both counts, stayed the sentence on the motor vehicle burglary count, and ordered the sentence to be served consecutive to another sentence that Alexander was already serving. Alexander was given four days of presentence credit.
On December 23, 2022 Alexander filed a notice of appeal from the "calculation of credits, sentence modification." Following the filing of the appeal, appointed appellate counsel filed a motion in the trial court seeking to correct the presentence credits. (Pen. Code, § 1237.1.) On September 28, 2023 the trial court granted Alexander's motion, and determined that Alexander was entitled to 20 days of presentence credit.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Alexander in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. Appointed counsel advised appellant on October 17, 2023 that he could personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted the court to consider. Appointed counsel also sent Alexander the transcripts of the record on appeal and a copy of the appellate brief. We have received no response from Alexander.
We have examined the record and are satisfied appellate counsel for Alexander has complied with counsel's responsibilities and there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SEGAL, Acting P. J., FEUER, J.