Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CRF091168
SIMS, Acting P. J.Police, responding to a 911 hang-up call from a cellular telephone, arrested defendant Joe DeJesus Ledesma after learning he grabbed the victim, his wife, by the neck and pushed her to the ground twice during an argument and took money and keys from her purse. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) in exchange for no immediate state prison time.
The court denied defendant’s request to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b). Finding this to be an unusual case, the court suspended imposition of sentence, granted defendant three years of formal probation subject to stated terms and conditions, and imposed specified fees and fines. The court further ordered defendant to serve 180 days in county jail, minus seven days of presentence custody credit. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
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.
Pursuant to this court’s miscellaneous order No. 2010-002, filed March 16, 2010, we deem defendant to have raised the issue of whether amendments to Penal Code section 4019, effective January 25, 2010, apply retroactively to his pending appeal and entitle him to additional presentence credits. We conclude that the amendments do apply to all appeals pending as of January 25, 2010. (See In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745 [amendment to statute lessening punishment for crime applies “to acts committed before its passage provided the judgment convicting the defendant is not final”]; People v. Hunter (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 389, 393 [applying the rule of Estrada to amendment allowing award of custody credits]; People v. Doganiere (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 237 [applying Estrada to amendment involving conduct credits].) Defendant is not among the prisoners excepted from the additional accrual of credit. (Pen. Code, § 4019, subds. (b), (c); Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess., ch. 28, § 50.) Consequently, defendant having served five days of presentence custody, is entitled to four days of conduct credit, for a total of nine days of presentence credit.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall prepare an amended order of probation, reflecting additional custody credits, and shall serve a copy of the same on custodial authorities.
We concur: HULL, J. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.