The People v. Dees CA5

Filed 8/28/13 P. v. Dees CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F065548

v. (Super. Ct. No. MCR041055D)

BRANDON WADE DEES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. David D. Minier, Judge. Elisa A. Brandes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Franson, J.

Appellant, Brandon Wade Dees, pled guilty to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/462, subd. (b))1 and admitted a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On appeal, Dees contends he is entitled to additional presentence custody credit. We affirm. FACTS On May 25, 2011, Dees and three other men broke into a house in Madera and took jewelry and other items. Dees and two of the men were gang members. On May 31, 2011, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Dees and the three other men with one count of burglary. The complaint also charged Dees with two prior prison term enhancements. Dees was on parole when he committed the underlying burglary offense. One of his conditions of parole was that he not “contact or associate with any person [he knew] or should have known to be a gang member or associate.” On August 3, 2011, Dees was taken into custody for a parole violation that was based on his commission of the above noted burglary and for “associating with prohibited persons.” His expected parole date was August 3, 2012. According to Dees’s parole officer, Dees’s parole would have been revoked solely for associating with prohibited persons. On September 14, 2011, while serving time on his parole violation, Dees was returned to Madera County custody for proceedings related to the instant case. On March 28, 2012, Dees pled guilty to the burglary charge and admitted one of the prior prison term enhancements in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining enhancement and an indicated sentence of three years, the mitigated term of two years on the burglary count and a consecutive one-year prior prison term enhancement. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.