Filed 2/17/22 P. v. Gonzalez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Lassen)

----

Defendant Juan Gonzalez appeals from the denial of a postconviction motion to correct his custody credits. Appointed counsel for defendant has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

In 2013, defendant was serving a prison sentence for a previous conviction. As he was transported to a different penal institution, he possessed a sharp instrument. The prosecution charged him with violating Penal Code section 4502, subdivision (a),[1] and alleged that he had suffered a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). In 2014, defendant entered into a stipulated guilty plea wherein he pled guilty in exchange for a sentence of four years and a dismissal of the prior strike allegation. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement and ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence he was already serving. The trial court did not award presentence custody credits. Defendant did not appeal this conviction.

In 2021, defendant filed a pro. per. motion to correct his presentence credits pursuant to sections 2900.5 and 4019. Defendant claimed that, at the time of sentencing, he had already served the maximum time required for his sentence and his credits must be modified to reflect this service. The trial court denied the request.

II. DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. We granted defendant’s request for an extension of time in which to file a responsive brief. The deadline for doing so has passed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable errors favorable to defendant, and we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

III. DISPOSITION

The denial of the pro. per. motion for custody credits is affirmed.

/S/

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

/S/

KRAUSE, J.

[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.