People v. Ratliff CA4/2 ( 2014 )

Filed 12/23/14 P. v. Ratliff CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E061311
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF091977)
DEVERON JACQUES RATLIFF, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Christian F. Thierbach,
Judge. Affirmed.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
On July 19, 2002, defendant and appellant Deveron Jacques Ratliff was sentenced
to 25 years to life plus 24 years in state prison for violations of assault with a deadly
weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1), count 2) and possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 4).2 The sentence included time
imposed for a personal firearm use enhancement (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), a gang
enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)), and having prior serious felony convictions (§ 667,
subd. (a)). The trial court awarded defendant 745 days of presentence custody credit (648
actual and 97 conduct). On August 14, 2002, the court considered a probation
memorandum and gave defendant an additional seven days of presentence custody credit
(654 actual and 98 conduct), for a total of 752 days.3 On November 18, 2004, the court
modified defendant’s sentence by striking the 10-year term for the gang enhancement and
imposing a minimum parole eligibility term of 15 years. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(5).) On
May 16, 2014, defendant filed a motion for correction of presentence custody credits,
pursuant to section 1237.1, arguing that he was entitled to additional presentence custody
credits for time spent in jail in Arkansas, prior to being arraigned in California. The court
held an ex parte hearing and denied the motion.
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2 Section 12021 was repealed in 2012.
3
On August 19, 2014, pursuant to a letter from appellate counsel, the court
amended the abstract of judgment to reflect 752 days of presentence custody credits.
2
Defendant filed a notice of appeal regarding the order denying his motion for
correction of presentence custody credits. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was convicted of one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245,
subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (former § 12021,
subd. (a)(1)).
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and one potential arguable issue: whether defendant is entitled to credit for the
days spent in custody in Arkansas, which are attributable to this case. Counsel has also
requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
KING
J.
4