Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County No. BA358210, of Los Angeles, Clifford L. Klein, Judge.
California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard B. Lernnon, Staff Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
YEGAN, J.
Blase Mason Edward Velasquez appeals from a July 28, 2010 order denying his post-judgment motion for additional presentence conduct credits. (Pen. Code, § 4019.)
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On July 30, 2009, an information was filed charging appellant with grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)) and second degree burglary (§ 459). It was alleged that appellant had suffered a prior strike conviction in 1983 for first degree burglary (§ 1170.12, subds. (a) –(d); 667, subds. (b)–(i)) and a prior prison term based on a 2002 burglary conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On September 18, 2009, appellant pled nolo cotendre to grand theft and waived time for sentencing. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, he was sentenced to three years state prison and awarded 93 days presentence custody credit and 46 days conduct credit.
Appellant did not appeal from the conviction.
On May 24, 2010 and July 26, 2010 appellant filed post-judgment motions for additional presentence conduct credits and 32 days post-sentence credits based on an amendment of section 4019 that became effective January 25, 2010. (Stats. 2009, 3d Ex.Sess.2009, ch. 28, § 50.) The trial court denied the motions on the ground that appellant's conviction was final as of September 18, 2009 and on the ground that appellant was not eligible for additional credits.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On December 6, 2010, we advised appellant that he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions he wished us to consider. No 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., PERREN, J.