P. v. Garcia
Filed 2/4/13 P. v. Garcia CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
RALPH GARCIA,
Defendant
and Appellant.
B241476
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
No. BA345131)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County. Gail R. Feuer,
Judge. Affirmed.
Dee.
A. Hayashi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Appellant
Ralph Garcia was charged with one count of second-degree
robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. The information alleged that appellant had
suffered a prior conviction that qualified as a serious felony prior under
section 667, subdivision (a)(1) as well as a strike within the meaning of
sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a)
through (d).
On
October 16, 2008,
appellant waived his constitutional rights,
pled no contest to the robbery charge and admitted both the prior strike and
prior serious felony convictions. The
court imposed the agreed-upon sentence of 9 years, consisting of the low term
of two years, doubled, plus five years for the prior serious felony
conviction. The court awarded appellant
61 days actual time plus nine days conduct credit, for a total of 70 days of
presentence credit.
On
April 12, 2012, appellant
filed a "Motion to Correct Abstract of Judgment" in which he argued
that he should get additional presentence credit under Penal Code section
4019, and that the amount of conduct credit should be increased to 91
days. The motion was denied on May 1, 2012.
Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him on this
appeal.
After
examination of the record, appellant's counsel filed an
and requested that this court conduct an independent review of the entire
appellate record to determine whether any arguable issues exist. On October
29, 2012, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to
personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to
consider. No response has been received
to date.
We
have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has
fully complied with his responsibilities and that no
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
Specifically, the trial court properly concluded that, because appellant
was convicted of a violent felony pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5,
subdivision (c)(9), his presentence custody credits were limited to 15 percent
pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.1.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
ARMSTRONG,
J.
We concur:
TURNER,
P. J.
MOSK,
J.
