Opinion
B299402
06-30-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.C. LEWIS BUTLER, Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of John F. Schuck and John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA090523) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Teri Schwartz, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of John F. Schuck and John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant L.C. Lewis Butler appeals from the judgment following resentencing on remand from a prior appeal. His appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have reviewed the record of the proceedings following remand and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
This is the third appeal in this case. Defendant was convicted on one count of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and one count of evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and was sentenced to a total of 35 years to life in state prison: 25 years to life on the burglary count under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), plus 10 years for two five-year priors (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). In defendant's first appeal (case No. B262334), we upheld defendant's convictions, but remanded for further proceedings on the prior conviction allegations and resentencing because no trial on the prior conviction allegations had been held.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
On remand, the trial court held a non-jury trial on the prior conviction allegations, and found them to be true. The court denied defendant's motion to strike his prior strikes, but struck four prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) that had been alleged in an amended information. Defendant appealed from the judgment on remand.
In his second appeal (case No. B286404), defendant raised several arguments, including that he was entitled to a remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to strike the section 667, subdivision (a) prior conviction allegations in light of the enactment of Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). We agreed with this argument and rejected the others. Therefore we vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to strike the section 667, subdivision (a) priors. We instructed the trial court that it could reconsider its other prior sentencing choices on remand, and directed the court to calculate the actual time defendant had already served in custody and credit that time against the sentence, and to award 86 conduct credits attributable to the period of actual custody through the original sentencing.
On remand, the trial court observed, correctly, that the remand was limited to allowing the court to exercise the discretion it had not had previously to strike the section 667, subdivision (a) priors. The court exercised that discretion, struck both prior conviction allegations, and sentenced defendant to a total term of 25 years to life in prison. Although the court computed the actual custody credits to be 2143 days, which was reflected on the abstract of judgment, that abstract of judgment did not state the specified number of conduct credits and instead stated that the Department of Corrections was to calculate the conduct credits. Following defendant's motion to recalculate custody credits, the trial court issued a new abstract of judgment stating that defendant had 2144 actual days, plus 86 days of local conduct credit, for a total of 2230 days of credit for time served.
DISCUSSION
Defendant's appointed counsel on appeal filed an opening brief under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, asking this court to review the record to determine whether any arguable issues exist. We notified defendant that he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief raising any contentions or arguments he wished this court to consider. No such brief has been filed.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that 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. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
We concur:
COLLINS, J.
CURREY, J.