IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
May 9, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
LAURA MARIE YOUNG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM032422)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro, J.
P. v. Young
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant, Laura Marie Young, asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error, but defendant is entitled to an additional day of presentence conduct credit. We will modify the judgment to provide for the additional day of credit and affirm the judgment as modified.
On April 16, 2010, officers searched defendant's motel room pursuant to a warrant and found 14 grams of methamphetamine, 255.98 grams of marijuana, a digital scale, drug paraphernalia, and tablets of Hydrocodone, Norco, and Vicodin. Defendant admitted she sold methamphetamine and marijuana to support herself and her drug habit, although at the plea hearing her attorney stated that defendant agreed only to the fact that she possessed methamphetamine for sale.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and two separate traffic cases (case Nos. NT182675, NT185853). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the upper term of three years.
Defendant appeals, but she did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
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. (Wende, supra, 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 of 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 that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Nonetheless, defendant is entitled to an additional day of presentence conduct credit. On September 23, 2010, the trial court awarded 15 actual days and 14 conduct days for a total of 29 days of presentence credit. But the most recent amendments to Penal Code sections 2933 and 4019 apply here. (See In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745 [amendment to statute lessening punishment for crime applies "to acts committed before its passage provided the judgment convicting the defendant of the act is not final"]; People v. Doganiere (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 237 [applying Estrada to amendment involving conduct credits]; People v. Hunter (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 389, 393 [applying the rule of Estrada to amendment allowing award of custody credits].) The record on appeal does not reflect that defendant is among the prisoners excepted from the additional accrual of credit. (Pen. Code, § 2933, as amended by Stats. 2010, ch. 426, § 1, eff. Sept. 28, 2010.) Accordingly, because defendant served 15 actual days in presentence custody, she is entitled to 15 conduct days for a total of 30 days of presentence credit.
The judgment is modified to provide for 15 days of presentence conduct credit, for a total of 30 days of presentence credit. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting this modification and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: RAYE , P. J. BUTZ , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.