Filed 6/14/16 P. v Curtis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY RAY CURTIS

,
Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B2 6 6103 (Super. Ct. No. BA430502 ) ( Los Angeles County)

Anthony Ray Curtis a ppeals a judgment entered following his nolo
contendere plea to grand theft

, and offeri ng a false or forged instrument , w ith admissions

that the criminal offenses involve related felonies involving a taking of $150, 0 00 or
more, and that he suffered a prior serious felony strike conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 487,
subd. (a), 115 , subd. (a)

, 186. 11 , subd. ( a )( 3 ), 667, subds. (b)

- (i), 1170.12, subds. (a)

- (d).) 1

We appointed counsel to represent Curtis in this appeal. After examination
of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. ( People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) On December 28 , 201 5 , we advised Curtis that he had 30 days
within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on
appeal. On April 8

, 201 6 , we received a response from h im contending that: 1) counsel's

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise

.2

summary of the evidence is false; 2) t he trial court erred by sentencing him to a term to

be served following his 2011 prison term; and

, 3) he is entitled to additional presentence custody credits. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123

- 124, we present
a factual and procedural summary of the case and a brief discussion of Curtis's

contention s

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 10 , 201 1

, Curtis was convicted of grand theft and offering a
false or forged instrument. (§§ 487, subd. (a), 115, subd. (a).) He received a prison term

of 64 m onths. The probation report prepared in th e present matter indicates that on
April 15, 2015, Curtis w ould be released from the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation into a post

- release community supervision program.

On January 7, 2 015, t he Los Ang eles Coun ty prosecutor charged Curtis by
felony information w ith two counts of identity theft, three counts of forgery, three counts
of offering a false or forged instrument, one count of grand theft, and four counts of
money laundering. (§§ 530.5, subd. (a), 470, subd. (d), 115, subd. (a), 487, subd. (a),
186.10, subd. (a).) The prosecutor also alleged that the criminal offenses involve related

felon ies involving a taking of $150,0 00 or more, and that Curtis suffered a prior serious
felony strike convict ion. (§§ 186.11, subd. (a)(3), 667, subds. (b)

- (i), 1170.12, subds.
(a)(d).)
The charge d counts rest upon fraudulent real estate loans procured by

Curtis and his codefendants. The ir scheme involved false identities, false real estate
titles, and ille gal transfers of funds. Curtis committed the present crimes while
incarcerated in prison for his 2011 convictions

.

In accordance with a plea agreement, Curtis waived h is constitutional
rights, and entered a nolo contendere plea to grand theft and offerin g false or forged

instruments. He also admitted the taking allegation and suffering a serious felony strike
allegation. On June 16, 2015 , the trial court sentenced Curtis to the agreed

- upon prison

term of five years four months , including a two year mid t erm for the grand theft count
(then doubled) , eight mo n ths for the false or forged instruments count (then doubled), and3

a stayed one

- year term for the taking allegation. T he court imposed a $300 restitution
fine, a $300 parole revocation restitution fine (suspended) a n $ 8 0 cou rt security
assessment, and a $6 0 criminal conviction assessment. (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45,
1465.8, subd. (a); Gov. Code, § 70373.) The court also a ward ed Curtis 330 days of

pr esentence custody credit and dismissed the remain ing count s and allegations.

DISCUSSION
A guilty or nolo contendere plea admits every element of the charged
offense and constitutes a conviction. ( People v. Zuniga (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1178,
1186.) For th is reason, issues regarding the sufficiency or admissibility of evidence are
not cognizable on appeal following a guilty or nolo contendere plea. ( Id.

, at p. 1187.)

The appellate record indicates that Curtis had served his sentence resulting

from his 2011 conviction prior to sentencing in the present matter. The trial court
awarded him 330 days of presentence custody credit. He is not entitled to credit for the
service of the prior prison term nor does his present sentence run "concurrently" to the
previous sentence.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

PERREN , J.

TANGEMAN , J.4 Lisa B. Lench, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Lenore De Vita , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.