Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA225932
THE COURT:In 2002, Brian Alrich pled no contest to two counts of lewd acts with a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate state prison term of 10 years and awarded 243 days of presentence credit, including 162 days of actual time and 81 days of conduct credit.
On September 26, 2008, appellant filed a “Motion to Credit Defendant for Time Served in Custody, with Additional Time for Good Time/Work Time,” claiming that he was entitled to four additional days of presentence credit; he actually served 166 days before sentencing instead of the 162 days he was awarded. The motion included no declaration or other evidence to explain or justify the request. The trial court denied appellant’s motion, the minute order stating: “Defendant contends that he is entitled to credit for 166 actual and 81 conduct credits, apparently requesting a total of 247 days. Defendant provides no basis for this contention. At sentencing on July 11, 2002, based upon defendant’s representations concerning his arrest in Washington State, there was a stipulation to custody credits in the amount of 162 actual and 81 conduct days for a total of 243 days.”
A minute order of October 10, 2008, indicates that appellant filed a “Motion for Modification of Sentence,” requesting to recall and modify his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d), to reflect the term of eight years and six months rather than eight years and eight months. This motion is not included in the record on appeal. The trial court denied the motion, the minute order stating: “The motion fails to demonstrate any ground upon which to recall and modify defendant’s sentence under Penal Code section 1170.”
Appellant appeals from the postjudgment order denying his motion for modification of sentence. He has failed to provide any basis for modifying the number of days of presentence credit which he was awarded in his original sentencing. Further, he has failed to provide an adequate record to establish any basis for recalling and modifying his sentence. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141 [it is the burden of the party challenging trial court proceedings to provide an adequate record to assess the error].)
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On February 27, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The order under review is affirmed.