Full Opinion

Filed 10/28/26 P. v. Snell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) THE PEOPLE, C105046 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 16F7813 & v. 17F1648 ) DAVID RAY SNELL, Defendant and Appellant. Appointed counsel for defendant David Ray Snell asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Although this is not defendant’s first appeal as of right, we exercise our discretion to independently review the record. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 233, fn. 6.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to him, we affirm. BACKGROUND Defendant’s notice of appeal is timely only as to the denial of his request for additional custody credits, so our review of the record is limited to those proceedings. Defendant pled no contest in case No. 17F1648 to the following: child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a); count 1), driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b); count 3), and driving with a suspended license based on a prior conviction for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a); 1 count 4). Defendant admitted two prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), two prior convictions for driving under the influence enhancements (Veh. Code, § 23540), having a blood alcohol content of .15 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23578), and violating probation in numerous cases, including case No. 16F7813, by committing the current offenses. As part of the plea, a nine-year sentence would be imposed and stayed, pending successful completion of probation, and defendant would be placed in a drug and alcohol treatment program. Defendant understood that he would not receive conduct or custody credit for his time spent in the treatment program. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court imposed and suspended, pending successful completion of probation, a total prison term of nine years in case Nos. 17F1648 and 16F7813 and placed defendant on five years of probation. Probation conditions included serving 189 days in jail with credit for time served and placement in a drug and alcohol treatment program. The court again advised defendant he would not receive any custody credit for his time in the program, per the plea agreement. Defendant violated probation. On June 12, 2024, the court sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison, having struck the two one-year prior prison term enhancements. Defendant did not appeal. On August 28, 2025, defendant sought additional custody credit for his time spent in the treatment program, arguing he did not waive his right to custody credit for his time spent in the treatment program. On September 22, 2025, the court denied his request, finding defendant negotiated a plea for a treatment program and probation instead of prison, and he knew that he would not receive custody credit for his time in the treatment program as part of the plea agreement. On October 29, 2025, defendant timely appealed the court’s denial of his request for additional custody credit. 2 DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the procedural history of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436; see People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, 233, fn. 6.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We have undertaken an examination of the record and conclude there is no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to him. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. /s/ MESIWALA, J. We concur: /s/ HULL, Acting P. J. /s/ FEINBERG, J. 3