1
Filed 5/8/17 P. v. Duran 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
v.
LUIS SAUCEDA DURAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
E066936
(Super.Ct.No. ICR22235)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Dean Benjamini, Judge.
Affirmed.
Luis Sauceda Duran, in pro. per.; Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Luis Sauceda Duran appeals from the denial of his
motion to modify presentence custody and conduct credits. Because the court already
awarded defendant those credits at a hearing in 2011, we affirm.
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 16, 2011, defendant pled guilty to a second degree murder he
committed in 1984. The court sentenced him to 15 years to life in prison, with credit for
623 actual days and 93 conduct days under Penal Code1
section 2933.1, for a total of 716
days. On June 21, 2011, in response to defendant’s oral motion to modify custody
credits, the court held a hearing and granted defendant credit for 623 actual days and 623
conduct days under section 2933, subdivision (e)(1), for a total presentence credit of
1,246 days.
On August 24, 2016, defendant, acting in propria persona, filed an “ex-parte
motion for amended abstract of judgment to include conduct credits pursuant to
California Penal Code [sections] 2900.5 & 4019.” He requested one day of conduct
credit for each day he spent in presentence custody, for a total of 1,246 day’s credit. On
that same date, the superior court held an ex-parte hearing on the motion, deemed it a
motion to modify credits, and denied the motion.
Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
Upon defendant’s request, this court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.
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
requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

1
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
3
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has done so. Defendant’s brief is difficult to understand. It appears to be cobbled
together from briefs in other cases. Ultimately, the brief concludes: “The court should
order the current abstract of judgment be modify to reflect sentence credit in the amount
of 1246.” The most current abstract of judgment in the record is dated June 22, 2011.
Defendant also attaches this as exhibit A to his supplemental brief. This abstract shows
defendant has already been credited with the 1,246 days he requested in his motion filed
August 24, 2016. Thus, the superior court correctly denied his motion.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
J.
SLOUGH
J.