Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 08F03643.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant, Sherman Johnson, Jr., was convicted in September 1998 of violating the requirement that, within five days of changing residences, a sex registrant must notify the authorities in the place he last registered. (Pen. Code, §§ 290.013, subd. (b), 290.018, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to three years in state prison and ordered to pay a restitution fine of $600 and various fees totaling $289.51, which were reduced to $20 following a previous appeal in the matter. (People v. Johnson (Nov. 4, 2009, C060385) [nonpub. opn.].)
Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In 2009, defendant filed a motion requesting that his fines be converted to a concurrent custody sentence pursuant to section 1205, subdivision (a), explaining he was a state prisoner and that he was “going blind” and was unable to pay the fines. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to convert his fine to custody time, concluding it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter once execution of defendant’s sentence had begun.
In his motion, defendant also sought a writ of habeas corpus, asserting he was being denied his constitutional rights and that he had “endured harassment, torture, cruel and unusual punishment, and [had been] deprived of his liberty, property and all without due process, and without equal protection of the laws of this state and nation.”
Defendant appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief, in which he makes a variety of statements, none of which relate to the denial of his motion to convert his fines to custody time. As such, they are not cognizable here.
In his brief, defendant contests the existence of the sexual offense conviction that presumably underlies his registration requirement; contends he “has had lawyers who were under the influence of drugs, and alcohol and/or pills, who didn’t care about what [he] was trying to explain in his case”; claims the charges were “trumped up, ” and involved “sheriffs [and] parole officers lying under oath” and “unethical prosecutors”; and complains that he has a myriad of medical problems that are being ignored.
Defendant also claims it is not possible for him to file a supplemental brief within 30 days due to “lockdowns” and his medical problems, and maintains that an additional 90 days “would be more appropriate” to “communicate all the prejudicial errors of this case” to his appellate attorney.
This court may grant an extension of time for filing an appellate brief if good cause is shown. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.60(c)(2)(D), 8.360(c)(4).) We question whether defendant’s request for additional time, tacked on as a paragraph in his supplemental brief, can be construed as an application for extension of time to file his supplemental brief. In any event, as none of the issues raised by defendant in his brief are cognizable in this appeal, we deny his request for additional time to file his supplemental brief as failing to show good cause.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record in this matter, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, Acting P. J., ROBIE, J.