People v. Calderon

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROGELIO CALDERON, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Mar 30, 2023

No. D081213 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2023)

Opinion

D081213

03-30-2023

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROGELIO CALDERON, Defendant and Appellant.

Sheila O'Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SCD127067 Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed.

Sheila O'Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

In 2009, a jury convicted Rogelio Calderon of first degree murder (Pen. Code,¹ § 187, subd. (a)). He was sentenced in 2012 to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, plus 10 years for the use of a firearm. The court awarded Calderon 2067 days of actual days of custody credits for the period of January 25, 2007 to September 21, 2012.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In August 2022, Calderon filed a motion to award additional custody credits for the same time period pursuant to section 1170.03. The trial court denied the motion by written order.

Calderon filed a notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Calderon the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.²

2 The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.

1. Whether the trial court erred in calculating Calderon's custody credits.

2. Whether Calderon's case was final for purposes of obtaining relief under section 1170.03.

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Calderon on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Calderon's motion to recalculate custody credits is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: DATO, J. DO, J.