People v. Deremer CA1/5

Filed 5/6/15 P. v. Deremer CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143483 v. (Humboldt County NICKOLAS E. DEREMER, Super. Ct. Nos. CR1200283, Defendant and Appellant. CR1201996A, CR1401786)

Nickolas Deremer entered pleas of guilty to drug offenses in three separate cases. He appeals from sentences imposed after conviction on the most recent offense and his admission that mandatory supervision terms were violated on the two earlier offenses. Assigned counsel submitted a Wende1 brief, certifying that counsel was unable to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also submitted a declaration confirming that Deremer was advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court’s attention. Deremer did not submit such a brief. As required, we have independently reviewed the record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.) We found apparent sentencing error, including calculation of custodial credits, and requested briefing from the parties. We remand for recalculation of custodial credits and correction of the abstract of judgment to reflect appropriate credits.

1 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

1

BACKGROUND Deremer did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)), and no cognizable issues are before us relating to his guilt or to his pleas. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1097, 1099; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74.) His appeal is only from his “sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.” Facts underlying his three offenses are therefore irrelevant, and we limit our discussion to the procedural history. In case No. CR1200283, Deremer entered a guilty plea to one felony count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350).2 On April 18, 2012, imposition of sentence was suspended, and Deremer was placed on Proposition 36 probation for a term of three years, with a condition of 181 days in the county jail. He received sentence credits for 91 days of actual custody, and 90 days of conduct credits. As far as the record shows, no appeal was taken. On May 17, 2012, Deremer entered a guilty plea to a new felony charge of possession of a controlled substance (§ 11350) in case No. CR1201996A. He admitted violating probation in case No. CR1200283. On August 6, 2012, he was placed on Proposition 36 probation in case No. CR1201996A for a term of three years, with imposition of sentence suspended. On December 7, 2012, Deremer admitted violating his probation in both matters, and probation was reinstated on each. On May 6, 2013, he again admitted probation violations in each case, resulting in revocation and termination of probation. Sentence was imposed on both cases. In case No. CR1200283, the court imposed the upper term of three years in county jail (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)), with one year suspended. A suspended consecutive sentence of eight months (one-third of the midterm) was imposed in case No. CR1201996A. Deremer’s resulting custodial term was two years in county jail, with an additional term of one year and eight months on mandatory community supervision following his release. He received credit for 172 days of actual custody and 172 days conduct credits. Deremer was released on mandatory supervision on