Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
Superior Court County of Ventura, No. 200827485, Edward F. Brodie, Judge.
California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
YEGAN, J.
Roel Centeno appeals from an October 29, 2010 order denying his post judgment motion for additional presentence conduct credits pursuant to Penal Code sections 2900.5 and 4019.
On July 9, 2008 a felony complaint was filed charging appellant with conspiracy to sell cocaine (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1), Health & Saf. Code, § 11352), transporting heroin for sale and possessing heroin for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351, 11352, subd. (b).) All three counts further alleged that the weight of the substances exceeded one kilogram. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.4, subd. (a)(1).) On January 30, 2009, appellant pleaded guilty to the transportation and possession counts and admitted the weight allegation. On March 9, 2009, he was sentenced to a term in state prison of six years. Appellant received credit for 244 days of actual custody and 122 days of good conduct credit. (Pen. Code, § 4019.) Appellant did not appeal from the conviction.
On October 27, 2010, appellant filed a motion in the trial court for an award of additional presentence conduct credits based on an amendment to section 4019 that became effective on January 25, 2010. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On February 8, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions he wished us to consider. On March 18, 2011, we granted appellant's request for additional time in which to submit his contentions, allowing him until April 10, 2011 in which file his supplemental brief. No supplemental brief or other response has been received.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., COFFEE, J.