Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CM031548
BLEASE, J.
Appointed counsel for defendant, Jason Bryan Harrington, asked this court to review the record to 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 concerns regarding presentence credits. We will affirm the judgment.
I
One night in September 2009, Oroville Police Officer Raymond Stott was driving around in an unmarked vehicle when he saw defendant walking on the sidewalk. Defendant was “very animated”; he was looking around a lot and appeared to be nervous or worried. Thus, Officer Stott, who was dressed in full uniform, pulled alongside defendant and asked to speak with him. Defendant agreed.
Defendant explained to Officer Stott that he was “bipolar and schizophrenic.” Defendant also said he was upset that the police frequently contacted him. During their conversation, Officer Stott noticed what appeared to be two pocket knives in defendant’s pants pocket. Stott asked defendant if he could remove the knives from defendant’s pocket; defendant “motioned his hip toward [Stott]” to allow him to do just that.
Both knives were folded pocket knives. One of the knives was approximately four inches long when folded. As Stott was examining it, defendant said, “[that’s] not a switchblade knife. It’s a spring-loaded knife.” The knife had a small knob that, when pushed, opened the blade “very fast, to a locked position.” When opened, the blade was approximately three-and-one-half inches long.
Defendant was still agitated, so Stott asked him to sit on the curb. Defendant complied. Stott called for additional officers to assist him and defendant asked to see his psychologist. Additional officers arrived; as they attempted to arrest defendant, defendant began kicking and screaming, “flailing around.” During the scuffle, one of the officers used a dry stun taser gun on defendant, only then were they able to put handcuffs on defendant.
After he was handcuffed, defendant continued to kick at the police officers. Accordingly, the officers began to put a wrap restraint on defendant. After the bottom half of the wrap restraint was secured, defendant settled down and the top half was not used. Officer Stott then approached defendant to search him further and defendant said something like, “[the] dope is there, right there in my pocket.” Stott reached into defendant’s pocket and found a baggie containing what later proved to be.81 grams of crystal methamphetamine.
Defendant was arrested and charged with possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), resisting a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), and carrying a switchblade knife (Pen. Code, § 653k). It was further alleged that defendant served two prior prison terms without remaining free for five years (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and was previously convicted of a serious or violent felony (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)).
Defendant pleaded not guilty, and waived his right to a jury trial. Following a bench trial, defendant was found guilty as charged and the court found true the enhancement allegations. Defendant filed a Romero motion (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497), which the trial court denied.
On the People’s motion, the court also dismissed, with a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754), an unrelated traffic violation in Butte County case No. DT 090791.
The trial court imposed an aggregate term of six years in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded defendant 240 days of custody credit (160 days of custody credit and 80 days of conduct credit).
Defendant appeals.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asked 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 have elapsed and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The recent amendments to Penal Code section 4019 do not operate to modify defendant’s entitlement to credit, as he was required to register as a sex offender, committed for a serious felony, and had a prior serious felony conviction. (Pen. Code, § 4019, former subds. (b)(2) & (c)(2); Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess., ch. 28, § 50.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, P. J. BUTZ, J.