P. v. Rowman CA4/3

Filed 6/3/13 P. v. Rowman CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G046916

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10HF0005)

RICHARD DANIEL ROWMAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Derek Guy Johnson, Judge. Reversed. Richard Daniel Rowman, in pro. per.; and Patrick Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, and Ifeolu E. Hassan, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Richard Daniel Rowman pleaded guilty to one count of first degree residential burglary. As part of a plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to a total of 12 years in state prison. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), setting forth the facts of the case, raising no issues, and requesting that we independently review the entire record. On October 29, 2012, this court provided defendant with 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. Defendant requested additional time to file written argument; this court granted defendant’s requests, and ultimately provided defendant until February 26, 2013, to file a supplemental brief. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief identifying any issues for our review. In response to this court’s order for supplemental briefing on the limited issue of defendant’s presentence custody credits, defendant, his appointed counsel, and the Attorney General all filed supplemental letter briefs. We conclude defendant is entitled to additional presentence custody credits, and we direct the trial court to amend the judgment to award defendant a total of 31 days of presentence custody credit, and to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting defendant’s correct credits. We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende/Anders brief, and find no other arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) BACKGROUND Defendant’s plea agreement included the following: “I offer the following facts as the basis for my guilty plea: [¶] In Orange County, California, on 12/1/09 I unlawfully entered a[n] inhabited dwelling without consent and with the intent to commit[] larceny inside.” Defendant was charged with one count of first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a).) The amended felony complaint alleged defendant had suffered two prior serious and violent felony convictions (id.,