Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 08F03125
NICHOLSON, J.
Zachary W. was robbed by someone at gunpoint in 2007. Six months later, he was confronted by defendant Vincent Ramon Robinson and a codefendant, who wrestled him to the ground, placed a gun to his head and threatened to kill him and his family. Approximately two weeks later, while Zachary W. was at work, defendant again approached him and threatened to kill him if he cooperated in the prosecution of the 2007 robbery. Defendant was arrested after Zachary W. provided police with defendant’s license plate number.
Represented by counsel, defendant pled no contest to dissuading or threatening a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), a strike, and admitted that a principal was armed during the commission of that offense (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)) in exchange for dismissal of all remaining charges and allegations and a stipulated sentence of five years (the upper term of four years plus a consecutive one-year term for the arming enhancement). The trial court imposed a five-year state prison sentence consistent with defendant’s negotiated plea. The court also ordered defendant to pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $30 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and a $30 court facility fine (Pen. Code, § 2085.5), and awarded him 1, 316 days of presentence custody credit (878 days of actual custody credit plus 438 days of conduct credit). Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
The recent amendments to Penal Code sections 2933 and 4019 do not operate to modify defendant’s entitlement to additional presentence custody credit as he was committed for a serious and violent felony. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (c)(20); 1192.7, subd. (c)(37); 4019, former subds. (b)(2) & (c)(2) [as amended by Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 28, § 50]; 2933, subd. (e)(3) [as amended by Stats. 2010, ch. 426, § 1, eff. Sept. 28, 2010].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, P. J., HOCH, J.