People v. Hart CA1/5

Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Hart CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A138076 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. CHILICO DAVID HART, Nos. SCR-599406, SCR-607909, SCR-611461 & SCR-620586) Defendant and Appellant.

Chilico David Hart (appellant) was convicted and pled no contest to various offenses in four criminal cases, and the trial court imposed a total prison term of five years eight months. Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has filed a supplementary brief contending that his sentence is unlawful because the total sentence exceeds the maximum authorized sentence, if periods of probation for which appellant waived custody credits are treated as part of the total sentence. We find no arguable issues and affirm.

1

BACKGROUND In June 2011, in SCR-599406, appellant was convicted of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459),1 grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of persons under 18 years of age (§ 311.11). In September, appellant was placed on formal probation for three years, on the condition that he enter a residential treatment program at Redwood Gospel Mission. In October, probation was summarily revoked. In January 2012, in SCR-607909, appellant was convicted of burglary (§ 459) and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)). Also in January 2012, appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance by a prisoner (§ 4573.6). In March 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of five years and suspended execution of that sentence, placing appellant on probation on the condition that he again participate in the residential treatment program at Redwood Gospel Mission. Appellant waived 349 days of custody credits, plus future credits for time spent in the treatment program. In April 2012, the trial court found appellant violated probation. In May, the court resentenced appellant to a total prison term of five years.2 In November 2012, in SCR-620586, appellant pled no contest to a charge of stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)). In January 2013, the trial court added a consecutive eight months to the sentence imposed on the other three cases, for a total prison term of five years eight months. The court also imposed various fines. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. In his supplementary brief, appellant contends the sentence imposed by the trial court is unlawful because the total sentence exceeds the maximum statutory authorized sentence, if periods for which appellant waived custody credits are treated as part of the