Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CM030824.
MAURO, J.
Appointed counsel for defendant Christopher Gaugush asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no Penal Code section 4019 concerns. We shall affirm the judgment.
Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
I
Defendant, known for his history of hostility toward law enforcement, was seen peeking into the windows of the Chico Police Department. Police found him hiding in the bushes with a knife and a metal corkscrew.
Defendant had previously stated, “I kill cops. Cops need to hang, ” and had been issued a citation for writing “Fuck police” and “I kill cops” on the wall of a local mall.
Defendant pleaded no contest to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger in case No. CM030824, and to misdemeanor vandalism in case No. SCR72176, in exchange for dismissal with a Harvey waiver of various charges in several other cases pending against him. The court imposed the upper term of three years but stayed execution of that sentence and placed defendant on three years of formal probation subject to terms and conditions, including completion of a residential substance abuse treatment program. Defendant was ordered to serve 180 days in county jail minus credit for time served, and to pay specified fees and fines.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
Approximately six months later, defendant admitted violating probation by terminating his participation in a residential drug treatment program without permission. The court terminated defendant’s probation and executed the previously imposed three-year prison sentence. The court imposed various fees and fines, including a restitution fine of $200 (§ 1202.4), a parole revocation fine of $200, stayed pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45), and the $200 probation revocation fine previously imposed but suspended. (§ 1202.44.) Defendant was awarded 157 days of custody credit, plus 78 days of conduct credit, for a total of 235 days of presentence custody credit. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
The court also imposed a concurrent one-year jail sentence in misdemeanor case No. SCR72176. Defendant waived presentence custody credits in that case.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
II
Our miscellaneous order No. 2010-002 (filed March 16, 2010) deems defendant to have raised the issue (without further briefing) of whether the January 25, 2010, amendments to section 4019 apply retroactively to his pending appeal and entitle him to additional presentence custody credits. However, the recent amendments to section 4019 do not operate to modify defendant's entitlement to credit, as he is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290. (§ 4019, subds. (b)(1), (2) & (c)(1), (2); Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess., ch. 28, § 50.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, Acting P. J., BUTZ, J.