P. v. Castillo

















Filed 1/24/13 P. v. Castillo CA4/2













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.







IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF >CALIFORNIA>



FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION TWO






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT DANIEL CASTILLO, Defendant and Appellant.

E056645 (Super.Ct.No. RIF10000169) OPINION

APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Riverside
County. Becky Dugan,
Judge. Affirmed.

Rex
Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Robert
Daniel Castillo was charged by information with href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">theft.
(Pen. Code,href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^[1] § 484, subd. (a), count 1.) It was also alleged that he had six prior
strike convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (c)
& (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A).)
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1 and
admitted one prior strike conviction.
Defendant moved the trial court to strike his prior strike convictions
pursuant to People v. Superior Court
(Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and
the court struck the remaining prior strike convictions. The court sentenced him to six years in href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">state prison and awarded 748 days of
presentence custody credits (623 actual days and 125 conduct credits).

Defendant
moved the court twice to correct the number of presentence custody credits
awarded, pursuant to the October 1,
2011 modification to section 4019.
The court denied the motions because defendant’s offense was committed
in 2009, and because he had prior strike convictions. Defense counsel subsequently submitted ex
parte correspondence to the court, pointing out that it had erred in its
calculation of custody credits, even applying the former version of section
4019 that was in effect at the time of the offense. The court changed the amount of href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">custody credits awarded to 933 days (623
actual days and 310 conduct credits). We
affirm.

PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND

Defendant
was charged with and admitted that on or about December 12, 2009, he committed theft, a felony. (§ 484, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant
appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent
him. Counsel has filed a brief under the
authority of href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
and Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and one potential arguable
issue: whether principles of equal
protection and ex post facto laws require that defendant be afforded conduct
credits under the most recent version of section 4019, effective October 1,
2011. Counsel has also requested this
court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We
offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, which he has not done.

Pursuant to the mandate of >People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,
we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable
issues.
clear=all >


DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.

NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS



HOLLENHORST



Acting P. J.



We concur:





RICHLI

J.





KING

J.