Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA042840
THE COURT:Danny Joe Morales appeals from the denial of his postjudgment motion for modification of the trial court’s award of presentence credits. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On January 31, 2011, we notified appellant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and appellant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, we affirm the order denying the motion.
In 1999, defendant was convicted of one count of carjacking and two counts of second degree robbery, with true findings that a principal was armed with a firearm in the commission of the crimes, and that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of one of the robbery counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to 17 years in prison, and awarded him 193 actual days of presentence custody credit, plus 30 days of good time/work time credit, calculated with a multiplier of 15 percent. Defendant appealed, and in an unpublished opinion, this court affirmed the judgment, but modified the sentence to 16 years eight months in prison. (People v. Morales (Aug. 31, 2006, B185017) [nonpub. opn.].) The remittitur was issued December 20, 2006.
On June 28, 2010, defendant applied to the trial court for a recalculation of Penal Code section 4019 presentence credits, with a 50 percent multiplier instead of 15 percent, and an award of 30 days of postsentence “process time” credits, pursuant to Penal Code section 2933. In his supporting declaration, defendant explained “process time” as the period after sentencing but prior to his initial classification by the Department of Corrections, but he did not claim to have exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to the claimed credits. To his memorandum of points and authorities, defendant attached a copy of an unpublished appellate court opinion regarding the retroactivity of the January 2010 amendments to Penal Code section 4019. (People v. Delgado (B213271, Apr. 29, 2010) [nonpub. opn.].)
The trial court construed defendant’s motion as seeking retroactive application of the January 2010 amendments to Penal Code section 4019, and found that they did not apply to defendants who, like this defendant, were convicted of a serious or violent felony. The court denied the motion July 12, 2010, and defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the order.
We conclude that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
The judgment is affirmed.