Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. MA044743 Thomas R. White, Judge.
Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ZELON, J.
Douglas Arthur Hauer was charged by information with committing attempted second degree robbery on January 29, 2009. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664.) The information specially alleged Hauer had served six separate prison terms for felonies (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On October 5, 2009, Hauer waived his constitutional rights and entered a negotiated plea of no contest to committing attempted robbery, and admitted one prior prison term allegation. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Hauer to an aggregate state prison term of four years, consisting of the upper term of three years for attempted robbery, plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement. Hauer received presentence custody credits of 373 days (249 actual days and 124 days of conduct credits). The court ordered Hauer to pay a $30 security assessment, a $30 criminal conviction assessment and an $800 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. The remaining special allegations were dismissed on the People’s motion.
On July 6, 2010, Hauer filed in propria persona, an “application for full crediting of back time credits, ” claiming he was owed conduct credits for the 249 actual days of his county jail commitment prior to being sentenced to state prison. The same day, the trial court denied the request as “moot, ” and Hauer filed a notice of appeal from the order denying his “post sentence application for recalculation of PC 4019 presentence credits.” Attached to the notice is a photocopy of People v. Delgado (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 271, in which the appellate court held the defendant was entitled to the retroactive benefit of an amendment to section 4019 that went into effect after the defendant was sentenced.
We appointed counsel to represent Hauer on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On October 15, 2010, we advised Hauer he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response to date. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Hauer’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The trial court denied Hauer’s postjudgment motion, because it had awarded the conduct credits upon which Hauer’s motion was based. However, in his notice of appeal, Hauer raised an issue that was not encompassed by his postjudgment motion. Accordingly, having never been presented to the trial court, the issue is not cognizable on appeal. (See § 1237.1.)
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: PERLUSS, P. J., JACKSON, J.