People v. Vernon CA3

Filed 11/17/14 P. v. Vernon CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C076572

v. (Super. Ct. No. 05F03047)

WILLIE JAMES VERNON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Willie James Vernon asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Although it appears defendant appeals from a nonappealable order denying reconsideration of a prior order reducing presentence credit, we will liberally construe the appeal to include the presentence credit order itself. Either way, however, we lack jurisdiction to consider the matter. We will dismiss the appeal.

1

I Defendant pleaded no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)),1 and admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury on two victims (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and had a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The trial court sentenced him on October 7, 2005, to 18 years in prison (12 years for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, plus two consecutive three-year terms for great bodily injury enhancements) and awarded him 156 days of presentence credit: 104 days of actual credit and 52 days of conduct credit pursuant to section 4019. More than six years later, in June of 2012, defendant moved for a free copy of the transcript from his criminal proceeding to pursue a habeas corpus petition. The trial court denied the request because his appellate counsel had previously been provided with a copy and defendant did not state how the transcript would aid in his habeas corpus petition. The next month, defendant asked the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment and the minute order from the October 2005 sentencing hearing. He wanted the trial court to impose his sentence enhancements concurrently and to correct the rate at which he earned presentence credits. The trial court denied the request. On September 9, 2013, defendant moved for clarification of the rate at which his presentence credit accrues under his plea agreement. He said the plea agreement permitted him to serve 80 percent of his sentence rather than the statutory 85 percent rate the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had been applying. However, the trial court entered a sua sponte nunc pro tunc order that same day, amending the abstract of judgment to reflect a reduced award of 119 days of presentence custody credit: 104 days of actual credit and 15 days of conduct credit pursuant to section 2933.1.