Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. CRF 07-9511
Margulies, J.
Following his conviction after a jury trial, defendant appeals from the modification of his sentence. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel has notified defendant that he can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
Because this appeal pertains solely to the modification of defendant’s sentence, a recitation of the underlying facts is neither relevant nor part of the record on appeal.
A jury convicted defendant of felony child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)), evading a police officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, § 2800.2), reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (a)), and driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found a prior conviction allegation true (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and found allegations defendant was on bail in connection with two other cases at the time he committed the current offenses true (Pen. Code, § 12022.1).
The trial court subsequently imposed a four-year state prison sentence. Defendant was sentenced to the low term of two years for child endangerment and a two-year consecutive term for one of the on-bail enhancements. The other on-bail allegation and the Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) allegation were stricken by the court. The court also ordered defendant’s prison sentence (secondary offense) to run concurrent to other terms he was serving in two other cases (primary offenses). Defendant received credit for one day of actual custody.
Defendant’s sentence, however, was later modified by the trial court in response to a letter from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) questioning the validity of the sentence. The Department indicated the trial court improperly ordered defendant’s prison sentence for the secondary offense to run concurrent to other terms he was serving on the primary offenses in violation of Penal Code section 12022.1, subdivision (e), which provides, “any state prison sentence for the secondary offense shall be consecutive to the primary sentence.” The trial court thereafter sentenced defendant to the midterm of four years for child endangerment and struck the on-bail enhancement that had been previously imposed. As before, the sentence was run concurrent to defendant’s other cases. The award of one day of presentence custody credit remained unchanged.
Whether the trial court was required to recalculate defendant’s custody credits when it imposed the modified sentence is an issue to be raised before the trial court if it needs to be raised at all. (Pen. Code § 1237.1; People v. Clavel (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 516, 518.)
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record focusing on the sole issue raised on the appeal, the propriety of the imposition of the state prison sentence. As modified, we find no sentencing errors since the sentence is now in compliance with Penal Code section 12022.1. There are no other meritorious sentencing issues that would require reversal of the judgment.
Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. No issues require any further briefing. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Marchiano, P.J. Dondero, J.