P.

P. v. Palmer CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 22, 2013B244167California708 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 4/22/13 P. v. Palmer CA2/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B244167

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA092597) v.

FRANK WILLIAM PALMER,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:*

Defendant and appellant Frank William Palmer (defendant) appeals from the denial of his postjudgment motion to increase his award of presentence custody credit. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues and requesting a court review of the record. On December 18, 2012, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.