P. v. Barnes
Filed 2/25/13 P. v. Barnes CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
BRIAN GILBERT BARNES,
Defendant and Appellant.
B243202
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. LA057069)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court of the County
of Los
Angeles, Susan Speer, Judge.
Affirmed.
California
Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Richard B. Lennon,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and
Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Brian Gilbert Barnes
(defendant) pleaded no contest to a
charge of vehicular
manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1)
filed an opening brief in accordance
with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 requesting that this court conduct an independent review of the record to
determine if there are any issues which if resolved in defendant’s favor would
require reversal or modification of the judgment. On October
30, 2012, we gave notice to defendant that his counsel had failed
to find any arguable issues and that
defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of
appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. We provided defendant with several extensions
of time, through and including February
15, 2013, within which to submit his brief or letter. Defendant did not file a response brief or
letter. After independently reviewing
the record, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On March 12, 2009, defendant
vehicular manslaughter, alleged to have occurred on October 9, 2007, in
violation of section 192, subdivision (c)(1), and admitted an enhancement
allegation for fleeing the scene of the crime in violation of Vehicle Code
section 20001, subdivision (c). The
trial court sentenced defendant to state
prison for a term of 11 years, and awarded defendant 787 days of custody
credit consisting of 525 days of actual custody credit and 262 days of conduct
credit.
On or about June 27, 2012, defendant, acting pro se, filed a
motion to correct abstract of judgment contending that he should have been
awarded, retroactively, additional days of conduct credit pursuant to the
version of section 4019 applicable at the time of his motion. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, and
defendant timely appealed the order.
We have
made an independent examination of the entire record to determine if there are
any other arguable issues on appeal.
Based on that review, we have determined that there are no arguable
issues on appeal. We are therefore
satisfied that defendant’s counsel has fully complied with counsel’s
responsibilities under People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
DISPOSITION
We affirm
the order.
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MOSK,
J.
We concur:
ARMSTRONG,
Acting P. J.
KRIEGLER,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All
statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
