Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC932468.
McAdams, J.
Defendant Howard Harold Posey, Jr. appeals from an order granting probation following his entry of no contest pleas. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. The period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from him. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we have reviewed the entire record and we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Therefore, we will affirm.
COMBINED PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
The historical facts underlying defendant’s pleas are drawn from the probation report dated April 30, 2009.
On December 25, 2008, Michele Geraci, defendant’s girlfriend with whom he had been cohabiting for two and one-half months, called police to report that defendant had assaulted her and stolen money from her purse without her permission after an argument over her lack of sobriety. Ms. Geraci complained of a small bruise and pain at the back of her head caused when defendant pushed her and she fell down. Ms. Geraci declined medical treatment.
Defendant was subsequently charged by felony complaint with grand theft person and misdemeanor battery on a cohabitant. The complaint also alleged a prior “strike” conviction for robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 484-487, subd. (c), 242-243, subd. (e): 211-212.5, 667.5, subd. (c)/1192.7, subd. (c), 667, subd. (b)-(i)/1170.12.)
On April 7, 2009, defendant was advised of and waived his rights, including his right to a preliminary hearing, was advised of the consequences of his pleas and admission, pleaded no contest to both charges, and admitted the “strike” prior conviction. In exchange for his pleas and admission, defendant was promised a maximum sentence of no more than 32 months in state prison, with the understanding that he would file a Romero motion to strike his prior conviction, and with the further understanding that if the court granted his motion, he could receive probation.
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1966) 13 Cal.4th 497, 530-531.
On August 7, 2009, the trial court granted the Romero motion and struck the prior conviction, stating its reasons for doing so on the record and in the minutes. The court granted defendant probation for five years, on the condition, among others, that he serve one year in the county jail and that, upon completion of his sentence, he be released to an authorized representative of the Salvation Army’s residential treatment program. The court also awarded defendant 295 days presentence credit for time served. Defendant timely appealed.
On November 3, 2009, appellate counsel brought to the trial court’s attention, by letter, a miscalculation in the presentence credits. On December 10, 2009, the court agreed with counsel’s recalculation of credits and awarded defendant the additional five days requested, for a total of 300 days credit for time served.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record. Defendant was adequately advised of his rights and the consequences of his pleas and admission. Defendant freely and intelligently waived his rights and entered his pleas and admission. No sentencing error appears. The court corrected any error in the award of presentence credit for time served. We conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal. (See also People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Premo, Acting P.J., Elia, J.