People v. Kramer CA2/6

Filed 3/12/24 P. v. Kramer CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B320203 (Super. Ct. No. BA435471) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

ANDREW H. KRAMER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Andrew H. Kramer pleaded guilty in 2018 to arson, assault, and other charges arising from a dispute with his former business partner and landlord. He received a negotiated prison term of 33 years and four months in state prison. The trial court awarded him 974 days of presentence custody credits and an equal number of conduct credits. Appellant disagreed with the credit award and moved to correct his sentence. The trial court denied the motion. We affirmed the denial order on appeal. (People v. Kramer (July 27, 2021, B304830) [nonpub. opn.], review denied Oct. 13, 2021, S270688 (Kramer I.).)

Since Kramer I, appellant has filed many motions, petitions, and related appeals seeking additional credits and other remedies to hasten his release from prison. None has succeeded. In this latest appeal, appellant challenges an order of the trial court denying a “motion to correct sentence and award statutory time credits.” We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requested we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed a supplemental brief, in propria persona, asserting he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. He filed a habeas petition raising the same issues while this appeal was pending. We conclude the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify appellant’s sentence. He is entitled to no presentence credits, of any type, other than those awarded to him at sentencing on July 18, 2018. Reframing his contentions as ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal does not achieve a different result. The order denying his motion, it follows, was not an appealable order. We will dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plea Agreement and Sentence Appellant was arrested in 2013 for series of violent crimes against a former business associate. Federal prosecutors charged him with conspiracy to distribute marijuana in an unrelated case in 2015. He was confined in county jail while the state and federal cases were pending. Appellant pleaded guilty to the federal drug charges in January of 2016 and received a 16-year sentence. He pleaded guilty to certain state charges, including arson, stalking, and