Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CRF09554
ROBIE, J.
In November 2009, defendant Gary Grant Hampton, Jr., a convicted felon, was found in possession of a nine-millimeter Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistol. Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with being a felon in knowing possession of a firearm, in possession of ammunition, carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle, and carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.
Defendant also was charged with carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, which defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe was stolen, concealing stolen property, and misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. In exchange, the People agreed to dismiss all remaining charges and cap his prison term at the middle term of two years. The People also agreed to dismiss the charges pending in an unrelated matter, case No. CRF09342, and not allege defendant’s prior strike conviction. The court accepted defendant’s plea and he was sentenced accordingly.
Defendant was awarded 63 days of custody credit and 30 days of conduct credit pursuant to Penal Code section 4019. He was ordered to pay a $400 restitution fine and an additional $400 restitution fine, stayed pending defendant’s successful completion of parole. The court further ordered defendant to pay a $30 court security fee and a $30 conviction assessment.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal but his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
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. (People v. Wende (1979) 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.
Defendant did, however, communicate with the trial court through a Fares letter, asking the court to correct his conduct credits pursuant to the recent amendments to Penal Code section 4019. Consistent with those amendments, the trial court corrected defendant’s Penal Code section 4019 credits from 30 to 62.
People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954.
The Supreme Court has granted review to resolve a split in authority over whether the January 2010 amendments to Penal Code section 4019 apply to pending appeals. (People v. Brown (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1354, review granted June 9, 2010, S181963 [giving retroactive effect to amendments]; accord, People v. Pelayo (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 481, review granted July 21, 2010, S183552; People v. Landon (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1096, review granted June 23, 2010, S182808; People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049, review granted June 23, 2010, S182813; contra, People v. Hopkins (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 615, review granted July 28, 2010, S183724; People v. Otubuah (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 422, review granted July 21, 2010, S184314; People v. Rodriguez (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 535, review granted June 9, 2010, S181808.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, Acting P. J., BUTZ, J.