Court Opinion

ID: 9895561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 19:03:36.57018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:35.359749
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/7/23 P. v. Nelson CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                            THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                    (Sacramento)
                                         ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097899

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 19FE017300)

           v.

 JAMES NELSON,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant James Nelson has asked this court to conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding none, we affirm the judgment.

                            FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
         A jury convicted defendant of indecent exposure and committing a lewd and
lascivious act on a child, the 11-year-old daughter of his girlfriend. (People v. Nelson
(Aug. 5, 2022, C092697) [nonpub. opn.] (Nelson).) The trial court sentenced him to eight
years eight months in prison. In his first appeal, another panel of this court affirmed the

                                                             1
judgment, but remanded the matter for determination of the correct award of presentence
credits. (Nelson, supra, C092697.)
       The facts underlying his original convictions are not relevant here as the only issue
in this subsequent appeal is the propriety of the custody credits. (People v. Murphy
(2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 392, 396-397 [the scope of the issues before the trial court on a
limited remand is determined by the remand order].)
       On remand, the trial court concluded defendant was entitled to 688 days of credit
and ordered the abstract amended accordingly.
       Defendant timely appealed.

                                        DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by his counsel of his
right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of when the opening brief was filed.
More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
       Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

                                              2
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                  HULL, Acting P. J.

       We concur:

       RENNER, J.

       KEITHLEY, J.

 Judge of the Butte County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution

                                              3