Opinion
H038144
10-30-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALFRED ELEAZAR SANTOS, JR., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Monterey County
Super. Ct. No. SS082710A)
Defendant Alfred Eleazar Santos, Jr., appeals from a post-judgment order denying his motion for additional presentence credit. On appeal, defendant's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
The record on appeal contains documents that also refer to defendant as "Alfred Eleazer Santos."
Background
In 2008, defendant was charged by complaint with possession of a controlled substance (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count 1) and misdemeanor possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a); count 2). The offenses allegedly occurred on or about October 31, 2008. The complaint further alleged that defendant had one prior strike (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and that he had served one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
The abstract of judgment reflects that in December 2008, defendant was convicted by plea of possession of a controlled substance (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count 1). Defendant also admitted that he had a prior strike (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). In February 2010, after probation was apparently revoked, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 32 months (the lower term, doubled). The trial court granted defendant 194 actual days credit and 96 days conduct credit for a total of 290 days.
In a "motion to correct abstract of judgment," which was apparently signed by defendant in January 2012, defendant contended that the version of section 4019 that was operative January 25, 2010, should be applied retroactively to him, and that he was consequently entitled to an additional 98 days conduct credit.
The copy of the motion in the record on appeal is not file-stamped.
--------
An out-of-court entry by the clerk on February 24, 2012, reflects that the trial court "read and considered defendant's motion," that the court denied the motion, and that a copy of the motion and "this minute order" was to be sent to defendant and his "attorney of record."
This Appeal
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appointed counsel has filed a brief in this court which states the case and facts but which raises no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no response from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
The trial court's order of February 24, 2012, is affirmed.
_________________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________
ELIA, ACTING P.J.
_________________
MÁRQUEZ, J.