Opinion
E062688
07-20-2015
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS ROBERT DILKS, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard Jay Moller, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FVI1401985) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John M. Tomberlin, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On October 10, 2014, an amended information charged defendant and appellant Thomas Robert Dilks with one count of unlawful driving or taking a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1.) The information also alleged that defendant had suffered (1) a strike prior (Pen. Code, §§ 245, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)); and (2) six prison priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
On September 26, 2014, the trial court denied defendant's motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
On October 3, 2014, the trial court denied defendant's motion under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 because it was untimely.
On October 10, 2014, defendant pled no contest to a lesser included charge of attempted auto theft (Pen. Code, § 664; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and admitted the strike prior, in exchange for a 16-month prison sentence.
On November 14, 2014, the trial court sentenced defendant to one-half the lower term of 16 months, or eight months, doubled for the strike prior, for a total of 16 months. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)); imposed and stayed a $300 parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45); imposed a court security fine (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); and imposed a criminal assessment fine (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court also awarded defendant 153 actual days and 153 conduct credit days for a total of 306 days.
On December 15, 2014, defendant filed a request for the court to order the prison to comply with the court's order of presentence conduct credits of 153 days and to order the prison to give him 20 percent conduct credit for his actual days since sentencing. On January 6, 2015, the trial court set a hearing for March 24, 2015. On April 6, 2015, we received a copy of a letter from defense counsel submitted to the trial court. In the letter, defense counsel stated that at the hearing on March 24, 2015, the parties and the trial court agreed that defendant should have been released many weeks ago. Defense counsel asked the trial court to reconsider the court's decision that it could not release defendant immediately while the case is pending in our court.
On January 7, 2015, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal based on the sentence or other matters that occurred after the plea.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Since defendant pled guilty, the evidence is summarized from the preliminary hearing: Sometime between May 18 through 20, 2012, a truck at a construction site was driven about three-quarters of a mile away without permissions. DNA analysis of the blood found in the truck matched defendant's blood.
DISCUSSION
After 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, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.