Filed 10/12/18 P. v. Gonzales CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
HENRY LOUIS GONZALES,
Defendant and Appellant.
| D073589
(Super. Ct. No. SCD263877) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Louis R. Hanoian, Judge. Affirmed.
Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Henry Louis Gonzales appeals from a judgment following a guilty plea. Gonzales's brief on appeal, filed by appointed appellate counsel, presents no argument for reversal in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Gonzales did not respond to separate invitations from appellate counsel and from this court to file a supplemental brief. After independently reviewing the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Gonzales pleaded guilty to one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and was sentenced to the low term of two years. At sentencing in October 2017, the trial court awarded Gonzales a total of 211 days of prejudgment custody credits. In March 2018, the court ordered as follows: that the award be corrected to reflect a total of 692 days of prejudgment custody credits; that the abstract of judgment be amended accordingly; and that a copy of the court's order and the amended abstract of judgment be sent to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.[1]
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified the following issue that "might arguably support the appeal" (id. at p. 744): whether the trial court correctly calculated the prejudgment custody credits to which Gonzales was statutorily entitled.
Gonzales's appellate counsel invited Gonzales to file a brief on his own behalf. After receiving the brief from appointed counsel on appeal, we granted Gonzales permission to file a brief on his own behalf. Gonzales has not responded.
Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
Appellate counsel has adequately represented Gonzales in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The October 6, 2017 judgment, as amended by the March 26, 2018 minute order, is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
[1] The record on appeal contains a proof of service indicating that the March 2018 order was served on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
