Opinion
D071250
02-07-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VAN KEYSHONE ROLLEN, Defendant and Appellant.
Christian C. Buckley, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. INF1201849) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Richard A. Erwood, Judge. Affirmed. Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
A jury found Van Keyshone Rollen guilty of attempted witness dissuasion (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subdivision (b)(1)) (count 3), battery (§ 242) (count 4), and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) (count 7). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that Rollen had previously suffered a prior conviction for robbery in 1996, two additional prior convictions for robbery in 2000, and a prior conviction for uttering criminal threats in 2011. (§§ 667, subds. (a), (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).) The trial court sentenced Rollen to state prison for an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, plus a determinate term of 20 years, consisting of four five-year serious prior felony enhancements.
Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
We draw the procedural background of the case from our prior opinion in this matter. (People v. Rollen (Sept. 4, 2015, D067473) [nonpub. opn.].) --------
In a prior appeal, Rollen contended that the trial court erred in imposing four, rather than three, five-year enhancements pursuant to section 667, and that the court erred in failing to calculate the number of presentence custody credits to which Rollen was entitled. (People v. Rollen, supra, D067473.) This court modified Rollen's sentence by vacating one of the section 667 enhancement terms imposed with respect to his robbery convictions in 2000 and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of Rollen's entitlement to presentence custody credits. (People v. Rollen, supra, D067473.)
On remand, the trial court held a hearing, and entered an order awarding Rollen a total of 932 days of credits. Rollen appeals from the trial court's order on remand.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. People v. Rollen, supra, D067473
The disposition in our prior opinion stated in relevant part:
"Rollen's sentence is modified to vacate one of the section 667 enhancement terms imposed with respect to his robbery convictions in 2000. The case is remanded to the trial court for a determination as to Rollen's entitlement to presentence custody credits."B. The hearing on remand
On August 12, 2016, the trial court held a hearing. At the outset of the hearing, defense counsel requested that the trial court conduct a full resentencing hearing. The trial court denied the request. Defense counsel also indicated that Rollen "wishes to challenge the Court and [have the matter] be sent to a different department." The court denied this request, as well.
The court indicated that it was required to award Rollen credits as directed by this court. Defense counsel indicated that he was in possession of the "credit memo[randum]," and stated, "I have no comments, your Honor."
The court entered an order awarding Rollen a total of 932 days of credit. C. Rollen's appeal
Rollen timely appealed from the August 12 order.
III.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. Counsel listed as a potential issue, the following:
"Did appellant have a right to a full sentencing hearing [on remand]?" (Boldface omitted.)
After this court received counsel's brief, we provided Rollen with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. Rollen filed a brief. In his supplemental brief, Rollen makes claims pertaining to his underlying conviction, as well as claims of purported judicial bias and ineffective assistance of counsel. Rollen's contentions pertaining to the underlying conviction are not cognizable in this appeal, and there is nothing in the record demonstrating that the trial court acted with bias in calculating Rollen's credits or that counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection with the hearing at which these credits were calculated.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the potential issue raised by appointed appellate counsel, and those identified by Rollen, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Rollen has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The August 12, 2016 order is affirmed.
AARON, J. WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. O'ROURKE, J.