People v. Sisco CA3

Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Sisco CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073975

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF12475)

v.

MICHAEL KEVIN SISCO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Between May and August 2012, unknown suspects removed copper wire from a commercial business and threw it over a fence. From a hiding place, defendant Michael Kevin Sisco observed the thefts and retrieved some wire from outside the fence. The business owner discovered the thefts and alerted local recycling firms. Later that day, a recycler advised the owner that defendant had brought in cables similar to the ones taken in the thefts. When defendant returned to the recycler, a Yuba County Sheriff’s deputy questioned him about the copper. He admitted that he had been “peeling from the ones who were peeling from the wrecking yard.”

1

Defendant pled no contest to receiving stolen property. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation on the conditions, among others, that he obey all laws and report to the probation department. He was ordered to make restitution to the victim in the amount of $180 and pay a $240 restitution fine, a $240 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked, a $370 presentence report fee, a $40 court operations fee, a $30 court facilities assessment, and booking and citation fees. Defendant failed to report to the probation department on the day of sentencing or thereafter. In March 2013, defendant was arrested at a major retailer on a charge of petty theft. Petitions were filed alleging that defendant violated his probation by failing to report to the probation officer and failing to obey all laws. Defendant admitted the failure to report. After he pled no contest to a new offense of petty theft, the trial court found true his failure to comply with the probation condition to “obey all laws.” Defendant was sentenced to a term of 16 months, awarded 52 days of custody credit and 52 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $280 restitution fine. 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. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Our review of the record discloses four minor errors: First, defendant was in presentence custody from August 16, 2012, through August 29, 2012, a period of 14 days; and from March 13, 2013, through April 22, 2013, a period of 41 days. Thus, defendant is entitled to 55 days of custody credit and 55 days of conduct credit.