Opinion
B300519
04-22-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ZEBADIAH OMAR YOUNG, Defendant and Appellant.
David W. Beaudreau, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA467579) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed. David W. Beaudreau, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Conforming to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Young's counsel filed an opening brief containing a statement of facts but raising no issues. Counsel asks this court to review the record independently and to determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. Young did not submit a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues exist. We affirm.
The facts of the underlying crime to which Young pleaded are not relevant to the present appeal so we do not provide a summary, but we do give the relevant procedural history. All citations are to the Penal Code.
I
On July 12, 2018, Young pleaded no contest to first degree burglary in violation of section 459. Young also admitted the burglary was a violent felony (§ 667.5, subd. (c)) and he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
The trial court sentenced him to the low term of two years and initially granted 123 days of actual presentence custody credit plus 122 days of conduct credit, for a total of 245 credit days. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation requested a correction of Young's credits pursuant to section 2933.1, which restricts conduct credit eligibility of those convicted of a violent felony to 15 percent. Because Young admitted he had committed a violent felony, the court vacated its previous award and granted 123 actual days plus 18 days of conduct credit, for a total of 141 credit days.
II
Young timely filed a notice of appeal based on the "CDCR letter ruling/credit earning change." His appointed appellate counsel filed a Wende brief requesting review of the entire record. Counsel declared he reviewed the record. Counsel wrote to Young explaining his evaluation of the record. Counsel further declared he advised Young of his right under Wende to submit a supplemental brief.
Young did not file a supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record of the proceedings consisting of the clerk's transcript, supplemental clerk's transcript, and reporter's transcript and are satisfied that appointed counsel fully complied with his responsibilities in assessing whether any appellate issues exist. The trial court correctly amended Young's presentence custody credits to comply with section 2933.1. There are no arguable appellate issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WILEY, J. We concur:
BIGELOW, P. J.
GRIMES, J.