Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. FC41414
RIVERA, J.
Defendant Jerry Fred Hamilton appeals a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine. His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has been apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
Defendant was charged by information in April 1996 in count 1 with felony manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)(3)), in count 2 with felony possession with intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11383, subd. (a)), in count 3 with felony possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)), and in count 4 with felony possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The information included allegations that defendant was personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)), an allegation that the substance containing methamphetamine exceeded three gallons (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.8), prior prison term allegations (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and prior conviction allegations (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subds. (b) & (c)).
According to the presentence report, defendant had been found in a motel room with chemicals and equipment commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, two handguns, packaging material, and scales.
Defendant pled guilty in July 1996 to count 1, and admitted he was armed in the commission of the offense and that the amount of methamphetamine exceeded three gallons. He also admitted two prior conviction allegations. He had been promised a sentence of no more than eight years. The remaining counts were dismissed.
Defendant failed to appear for sentencing, and a bench warrant was issued in February 1997.
At some point afterward, defendant was committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDC) for another offense. According to defendant, while he was serving that sentence, he was told Solano County had not placed a hold or a detainer on him and that he could not send a demand letter under Penal Code section 1381. He was released from CDC custody in 2004. He was again arrested in 2004; and according to defendant, the Sacramento County Superior Court sentenced him to 34 years in prison on the new charge. In November 2006, the Solano County Superior Court ordered the CDC to release defendant to the custody of the Solano County Sheriff’s Department to appear in the trial court for further proceedings in the present matter.
Penal Code section 1381 provides in pertinent part that “[w]henever a defendant has been convicted, in any court of this state, of the commission of a felony or misdemeanor and has been sentenced to and has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a state prison . . ., and at the time of the entry upon the term of imprisonment or commitment there is pending, in any court of this state, any other . . . criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be sentenced, the district attorney of the county in which the matters are pending shall bring the defendant to trial or for sentencing within 90 days after the person shall have delivered to said district attorney written notice of the place of his or her imprisonment or commitment and his or her desire to be brought to trial or for sentencing . . . .” A defendant claiming he was not notified of the pending charges or his right to demand a trial bears the initial burden of showing prejudice to his interests. (People v. Brusell (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 712, 718.) The purpose of section 1381 is to allow the defendant the benefit of concurrent sentencing on the earlier matter, if it is within the court’s discretion. (Brusell, at p. 716.) As we will explain, the sentence ultimately imposed in this action runs concurrently with that imposed for a later offense.
The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of five years (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)), with an additional three years on the enhancement pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11379.8, subdivision (a)(1). Sentence was stayed on the remaining enhancements. Defendant was granted custody credits of 547 days based on his time of actual confinement from December 20, 1995, to December 18, 1996. His sentence was to run concurrently with the prison term he was serving on the 2004 Sacramento County case.
Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. His sentence was calculated correctly and was consistent with the plea agreement. There are no meritorious issues to be argued.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RUVOLO, P.J., SEPULVEDA, J.