Opinion
E056771
11-26-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID ALLEN CLARY, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super.Ct.No. RIF141168)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant David Allen Clary appeals after the trial court denied his postjudgment motion to receive additional conduct credits pursuant to Penal Code section 4019. We affirm the trial court's order.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to possession of stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).) In return, the remaining allegations were dismissed, and on November 16, 2010, defendant was sentenced to four years in state prison pursuant to the three strike law. (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (e)(1).) Defendant was awarded 266 days of presentence conduct credits.
On June 25, 2012, defendant filed an ex parte motion for an order correcting his presentence custody credits, claiming he was entitled to 90 days of additional conduct credits pursuant to amended Penal Code section 4019, which became effective on January 25, 2010. (Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 28, § 50.) The trial court denied defendant's request, finding the presentence credits were properly calculated. This appeal followed.
We note that Penal Code section 4019 has been amended twice since January 2010, but those amendments only apply to crimes committed after certain dates.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur: KING
J.
MILLER
J.