P. v. Trejo
Filed 5/10/13 P. v. Trejo 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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
MANUEL TREJO,
Defendant and Appellant.
B244686
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BA279423)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, John Fisher, 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 for Plaintiff and Respondent.
>
INTRODUCTION
Defendant
and appellant Manuel Trejo appeals
from an order denying his petition for an order granting additional presentence
conduct credit pursuant to Penal Code sections 2933 and 4019 and an order
correcting his abstract of judgment to reflect that his robbery conviction was
a serious felony and not a violent felony.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an
independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable
issues. On January 23, 2013, we gave notice to defendant that 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.
Defendant did not file a responsive brief or letter. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
On August 18, 2005, defendant was
convicted of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) He received 174 days of actual custody credit
and 26 days of conduct credit. On August 13, 2012, defendant filed a
petition for an order granting additional conduct credit under amendments to
Penal Code sections 2933 and 4019 that became effective on October 1, 2011, and for an order correcting his
abstract of judgment to reflect that his robbery conviction was a serious
felony and not a violent felony. The trial
court denied the petition.
DISCUSSION
We
appointed counsel to represent
defendant in this appeal. After
examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to
independently review the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436. On January 23, 2013, we gave notice to defendant
that 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. Defendant did not submit a brief or
letter. We have examined the entire
record and are satisfied that defendant’s counsel has fully complied with his
responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The order
is affirmed.
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL RESULTS.
MOSK,
J.
We concur:
TURNER,
P. J.
ARMSTRONG,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Defendant
appeals from the denial of a post-judgment petition. The record on appeal does not contain
information concerning the facts of defendant’s crime. The facts of defendant’s crime were not
relevant to the trial court’s disposition of defendant’s petition. Accordingly, this opinion does not include a
statement of those facts. The procedural
facts are taken, in large part, from defendant’s petition.
