P. v. Quijada

Filed 10/24/06 P. v. Quijada CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Robert Quall, Judge.

Richard Power, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appellant, Jesse Anthony Quijada, pled no contest to possession of a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)) and admitted that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). On January 18, 2006, the court sentenced Quijada to the middle term of two years, doubled to four years because of his prior strike conviction.

Quijada’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Quijada has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. However, our review of the record disclosed that Quijada is entitled to an additional day of presentence actual custody credit. The court awarded Quijada 522 days of presentence custody credit consisting of 348 days of actual custody credit and 174 days of conduct credit. However, Quijada was in custody 349 days between the date of his arrest in this matter on February 4, 2005, and the date of his sentencing on January 18, 2006. Thus we conclude that Quijada is entitled to 523 days of presentence custody credit (349 days of actual custody credit + 174 days of conduct credit = 523 days of presentence custody credit). Our review of the record also disclosed that Quijada’s abstract of judgment contains a clerical error in that it erroneously indicates that Quijada was awarded only 114 days of conduct credit. We will direct the trial court to correct these errors.

Further, following independent review of the record we find that with the exception of the issues discussed above, no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to award Quijada 523 days of presentence custody credit as calculated above. The trial court is directed to file an amended abstract of judgment which correctly memorializes Quijada’s entitlement to presentence custody credit and to send a certified copy to the Department of Corrections. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

^* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Gomes, J.