People v. Moua CA2/2

Filed 7/28/23 P. v. Moua CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B320839

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA156144) v.

CHEE NENG MOUA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Teresa P. Magno, Judge. Affirmed. Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

Appellant Chee Neng Moua pleaded no contest to one count of receiving a stolen vehicle in violation of Penal Code1 section 496d. He also admitted two prior felony convictions in Los Angeles County Superior Court Nos. GA106618 (hereinafter GA- 618) and GA099797. In exchange for his plea, appellant received a two-year state prison sentence. The trial court awarded 83 days of custody credit for the period from February 23, 2022, when an arrest warrant was issued in the case, to the date of sentencing, May 17, 2022. Appellant also received 82 days conduct credit for a total of 165 days credit. Appellant’s sole claim in this appeal is that he is entitled to custody credits for the time he served in presentence custody from June 24, 2021, until May 17, 2022. However, as the trial court found, appellant’s custody from June 24, 2021, to February 23, 2022, was on other matters, and his presentence custody in the instant case did not begin until February 23, 2022. We therefore reject appellant’s argument and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Around midnight on June 24, 2021, police observed appellant standing behind a blue BMW appearing to retrieve items from the trunk. When the officers contacted him, appellant first claimed the car belonged to him, but then said it belonged to his friend “James.” After the officers determined the vehicle had been reported stolen, appellant was arrested. In an information filed April 19, 2022, appellant was charged with the felony of receiving a stolen vehicle in violation of section 496d. Appellant was arraigned and entered a plea of