1 Filed 12/4/13 P. v. Gaines CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. MIQUELA LATRICE GAINES, Defendant and Appellant. A139110
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR251957)

Following a physical altercation with a 12-year-old victim in a fast food restaurant, Miquela Latrice Gaines pleaded no contest to counts of assault (Pen. Code, 1 § 245, subd. (a)), petty theft w ith a prior conviction (§§ 484, subd. (a), 666), and battery (§ 242). The court placed Gaines on supervis ed probation for three y ears. After Gaines
admitted a second violati on of her probation, the court se ntenced her to three years in state prison, with credit for 588 days. Gain es moved for modification of her sentence, seeking additional credits. The court deni ed her motion and Gaines now appeals. Gaines’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders )), in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of th e record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 ( Kelly ).) Counsel attests that Gaines was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief, but she has not exercised that right.

1 Unless indicated otherwise, subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 We have examined the entire record in accordance with Wende . We agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal and affirm.
I. Factual Background
The facts stated below are taken from the initial probation department sentencing report. An employee of a fast food restaurant st ated that on January 25, 2008, he observed Gaines and her daughter “beating up” a 12-ye ar-old victim. The employee saw Gaines
hit the victim in the head with her fist, grab her hair, and h it her head onto the floor and wall of the bathroom. The employee helped the victim leave the area and the victim’s cell phone fell from her pocket. Gaines picked up the cell phone and yelled, “ ‘Bitch, you ain’t getting no phone.’ ” A responding offi cer found the phone in Gaines’s pocket.
Another witness saw Gaines hit the victim in the face and body and pull her hair. Gaines and her daughter pushed this witn ess when he attemp ted to intervene.
BACKGROUND
II. Procedural Background On July 9, 2008, the People filed an in formation charging Gaines with felony corporal injury to a child (§ 273d, subd. (a)) (count one); a ssault (§ 245, subd. (a)) (count two); felony petty theft with a prior convic tion (§§ 484, subd. (a), 666) (count three); felony receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) (count fou r); two counts of misdemeanor battery (§ 242) (counts five and eight); misdemeanor participation in a riot (§ 404, subd. (a)) (count six); and misdemea nor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) (count seven). Gaines entered a pl ea of not guilty on all counts. On January 12, 2009, Gaines changed he r plea to no contest on counts two, three and five. The remaining counts were dismissed. On March 6, 2009, following production of a probation report, the court placed Gaines on three years of supervised probatio n, conditioned on serving 180 days in county jail. On April 20, 2009, the court referred Gaines to th e alternative sentencing program and stayed her date to report to county jail.3 Two years later, on May 9, 2011, pursu ant to a petition to revoke Gaines’s probation because she had violated the law, the court revoked Gaines’s probation. Gaines admitted violating her probation on May 16. On June 13, 2011, following production of a supplemental probation report, the court imposed a sentence of three years and ei ght months. The court then suspended the sentence and re-admitted Gaines to supervised probation with 180 days to be served in county jail immediately, w ith credit for 80 days. On November 8, 2012, the court revo ked Gaines’s probation, pursuant to a petition to revoke her probation because she had again violated the law. On December 4, Gaines admitted violating pr obation. On January 2, 20 13, following production of a supplemental probation report, the court impos ed the previously suspended sentence of three years and eight months, and then recalle d it, pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d). The court reduced count three to a misdem eanor, because of a change in the law, and imposed a sentence of three years in prison, with credit for 588 days. On April 23, 2013, Gain es moved for modification of her sentence, seeking
additional credits. The court deni ed Gaines’s motion on April 29. On June 26, 2013, Gaines filed a notice of appeal, specifying that the appeal was
based on the sentence or other matters occu rring after her plea that do not affect the validity of her plea. This notice of appeal was timely only with re gard to the court’s denial of Gaines’s motion seeking additional credits.
DISCUSSION Gaines’s appellate counsel represents that the opening brief is filed in accordance
with Wende . The Wende court held: “We conclude that Anders requires the court to
conduct a review of the entir e record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues or descri bes the appeal as frivolous.” ( Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Gaines’s appeal was timely only with re gard to the trial court’s denial of her
motion for modification of he r sentence by the award of additional credits. Gaines sought credits for the time from May 31, 2012, to November 6, 2012, the date she was4 taken into custody in Solano County. During this period, Gaines was serving a sentence in Sacramento County on unrela ted charges. The trial court found that Gaines was not legally entitled to credits for ti me served in Sacram ento County . We discern no error in
that determination.
We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and
Anders , and we find no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

_ ____________ ____________ Brick, J.*

We concur:

_____________ ____________ Kline, P.J.

_____________ ____________ Haerle, J.

* Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.