Opinion
D061752
10-24-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FABIO KINDT, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. SCS246262,
SCD220765, SCS199086,
SCS242317)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Esteban Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed.
Fabio Kindt appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct the abstract of judgment to award him additional presentence custody credits. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders)and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)that raised no claims of error. Kindt did not respond to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. Having reviewed the record and found no reasonably arguable issues, we affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Kindt was convicted of robbery (Pen. Code, § 212.5) and was sentenced to a two-year term of imprisonment. The trial court awarded 97 days of actual custody credit and 14 days of credit pursuant to section 2933.1. Acting in propria persona, Kindt filed a motion with the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to award additional presentence custody credits. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that Kindt had been convicted of a violent felony as identified in section 667.5, subdivision (c) which, pursuant to section 2933.1, limited the available presentence credit to 15 percent of actual time. A notice of appeal was filed from the denial of the motion.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
II
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and the proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal, but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as a possible but not an arguable issue whether "[a]ppellant was entitled to additional presentence custody credits based upon the law in effect at the time of his sentence, June 2, 2011." After we received counsel's brief, we gave Kindt an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but he did not respond.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issue suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Kindt has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
________________________
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR: ________________________
BENKE, Acting P.J.
________________________
HALLER, J.