From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People. v. Heath

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Feb 4, 2011
No. D057569 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2011)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADAM LYNN HEATH, Defendant and Appellant. D057569 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division February 4, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCN237221, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge.

McCONNELL, P. J.

In November 2007 Adam Lynn Heath was charged with possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The information also alleged two prison priors within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).

Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In February 2008 Heath pleaded guilty to the possession count and admitted the strike prior. The following month, he withdrew his plea. In November 2008 he again pleaded guilty to the possession count and admitted the strike prior, this time in exchange for a prison sentence not to exceed 32 months. In April 2010 the court sentenced Heath to 16 months in prison, consecutive to a term imposed on a conviction in another case.

FACTS

Because Heath pleaded guilty, we take the facts from the probation report. At about midnight on November 7, 2007, police officers saw Heath standing outside a closed business. Heath threw a small white object on the ground, which appeared to be cocaine. The officers arrested Heath, who was on parole. "A presumptive test on the white power confirmed that it was cocaine. There was a total gross weight of.91 grams of cocaine."

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and asking this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Counsel has not referred to any potential issue.

We granted Heath permission to file a brief on his behalf, and he has done so. Heath contends there is an appealable issue as to whether he is entitled to additional custody credits, for two different periods in which he was in custody. We asked Heath's appointed counsel and the People to submit briefing on the issue, and they have done so. They both note the appellate record is unclear on the issue of custody credits. They request remand for the trial court's redetermination of custody credits, and we agree that is appropriate. "[T]his is the sort of determination trial courts are in the best position to make, aided by their administrative support including the probation department." (People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 957.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for its redetermination of custody credits.

WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J., AARON, J.


Summaries of

People. v. Heath

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Feb 4, 2011
No. D057569 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2011)
Case details for

People. v. Heath

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADAM LYNN HEATH, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Feb 4, 2011

Citations

No. D057569 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2011)