Opinion
A148122
01-10-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL STANFIELD, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C138696A, 115459)
Paul Stanfield appeals from a post-judgment order denying his request for additional presentence conduct credits. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issues and affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2000, appellant was sentenced to 20 years in prison after he pleaded no contest to a single count of second degree robbery and admitted two prior serious felony convictions. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c), 667, subd. (a), 1170.12.) He was awarded 219 days of presentence credits, consisting of 190 actual days and 29 days of conduct credit.
On June 25, 2015, appellant filed a motion to modify his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. The court denied that motion on July 23, 2015, and this court affirmed the order on appeal after an independent review of the record under Wende/Anders. (People v. Paul Stanfield (Feb. 9, 2016, A146134) [nonpub. opn.].)
On December 10, 2015, appellant filed a pro se "Motion for Conduct Credits and Pre-sentence Credits," arguing he was entitled to an additional 219 days of presentence credits pursuant to a 2010 amendment to Penal Code section 4019. The trial court denied the motion by a written order that is the subject of the instant appeal:
"A review of the court file reveals that the trial court awarded Defendant the correct amount of presentence credits. Defendant was arrested on April 27, 2000, and sentence[d] on November 2, 2000, and there [are] 190 days between both dates. Thus, the trial court correctly calculated the actual presentence credits pursuant to Penal Code section 2900.5.
"As to the presentence credits for the good time/work credits, [the] court also awarded Defendant the correct number [of] days. Defendant alleges that he should have received day for day credit under Penal Code [section] 4019. . . .The January 25, 2010 amendment to Penal Code section 4019 only applies prospectively. (People v. Brown (2010) 54 Cal.4th 314, 318.) The version of Penal Code section 4019 that was in effect at the time of Defendant's sentence governed pre-sentence credits, unless otherwise limited by sections 2933.1 (violent felonies) and 2933.2 (murder), and entitled some defendants to two days of conduct credit for every four days served. The crime of robbery pursuant to Penal Code section 211 is both a violent and a serious felony. (See Penal Code sections 667.5, subd. (c)(9) and 1192.7, subd. (c)(19).) Therefore, the limitation pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.1 applies, and Defendant is not entitled to credits pursuant to Penal Code section [2933.1], which is 15 percent of the total actual time served. Here, 29 days is 15 percent of [the] 190 actual days served."
II. DISCUSSION
As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note appointed counsel has filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, appellant has been advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, and appellant did not file such a brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find none.
The 2010 amendment to Penal Code section 4019 was not retroactive and did not apply to appellant, who had served all his presentence custody long before the amendment went into effect. (People v. Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 318; see Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess., 2009-2010, ch. 28, § 50, subsequently amended by Stats. 2010, ch. 426, § 2, Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 482, Stats. 2011, ch. 39, § 53, and Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 12, § 35.) And, because appellant was convicted of a violent felony, his presentence conduct credits were limited by Penal Code section 2933.1 to 15 percent of his actual time in custody, regardless of the 2010 amendment to Penal Code section 4019. (People v. Brewer (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 457, 461-462 & fn. 5.) Appellant was awarded the maximum number of presentence conduct credits available to him under the law, and he is not entitled to any additional credits.
We are satisfied appellant's appointed attorney has complied with the responsibilities of appellate counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 283.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. We concur. /s/_________
SIMONS, ACTING P.J. /s/_________
BRUINIERS, J.