People v. Sands CA3

Filed 1/30/14 P. v. Sands CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073808

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F04461)

v.

ARIC RAYMOND SANDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Aric Raymond Sands has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant has filed a supplemental brief seeking additional credit. We shall affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On or around June 20, 2011, defendant drove a pickup truck without the owner’s consent or permission. Defendant was charged with driving or taking of a motor vehicle

1

(Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code,1 § 496d, subd. (a)) with a prior strike and four prior prison term allegations (§§ 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant pleaded no contest to unlawful driving or taking of a motor vehicle and admitted four prior prison terms, with the remaining charge and strike allegation dismissed in the interests of justice. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant received a sentence of eight years in state prison; the trial court stayed execution of the sentence and placed defendant on five years of formal probation subject to various terms and conditions including completing a residential drug treatment program. Defendant subsequently admitted to violating his probation by failing to successfully complete the program. The trial court executed the eight-year term and awarded 523 days of presentence credit (383 actual and 140 conduct). It subsequently amended the award to 573 days (383 actual and 190 conduct) and again to reflect 48 days spent in the program, for an award of 621 days (431 actual and 190 conduct). Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief contending he is entitled to the application of a more favorable conduct credit formula under the principals of equal protection. We disagree. “The essence of an equal protection claim is that two groups, similarly situated with respect to the law in question, are treated differently. [Citations.]” (Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 869, 892.)