Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR 196004
Pollak, J.
Defendant Rashad Brown appeals from an order modifying his probation and requiring him to serve one year in county jail. Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that we conduct an independent review of the entire record on appeal. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have received no such brief. After independently reviewing the record, we find no error or cause for further briefing and therefore shall affirm.
Background
On July 2, 2008, defendant pled no contest to one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) in exchange for a promise of probation and a potential maximum sentence of one year in county jail. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for three years. Defendant was ordered to spend 180 days in jail and complete a “theft offender” class as conditions of probation.
On April 2, 2010, defendant’s probation was revoked based on allegations that he had failed to complete a “theft offender” class and had missed multiple appointments with his probation officer. On April 15, 2010, defendant admitted the alleged violations of probation. Consistent with the terms of his plea agreement, defendant’s probation was reinstated with the condition that he spend one year in county jail. The court ordered that defendant’s probation terminate upon his release from jail. At his sentencing hearing, defendant requested 220 days custody credit based on the 96 days he spent in custody in 2008 and the 14 days he spent in custody in April 2010. He argued that the January 2010 amendment to Penal Code section 4019, pursuant to which offenders convicted of nonserious and nonviolent crimes earn presentence conduct credit at a rate of two days for every two days in custody, should be applied retroactively to all of his time spent in custody. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the January 2010 amendment should be applied retroactively and found that defendant was entitled to only 172 days of credit. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. While his appeal was pending, defendant completed his jail term and his probation was terminated.
The retroactivity of the January 2010 amendment to Penal Code section 4019 is currently pending before the Supreme Court. (See, e.g., People v. Bacon (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 333, review granted Oct. 13, 2010, S184782.)
Discussion
Defendant’s notice of appeal challenges only “the sentence and other matters occurring after the plea.” Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause. Accordingly, any issues with regard to the validity of defendant’s plea are beyond the scope of the appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
Defendant was sentenced in conformity with his plea agreement. Any potential error with regard to the calculation of presentence credits is moot because defendant has completed his jail term and his probation has been terminated. (Keefer v. Keefer (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 335, 337 [“An appellate court will not review questions which are moot and which are only of academic importance. It will not undertake to determine abstract questions of law at the request of a party who shows that no substantial rights can be affected by the decision either way”].)
Disposition
The order modifying probation is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P. J., Siggins, J.