Filed 2/20/14 P. v. Welton CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KAHINDA WELTON,

Defendant and Appellant. B247916

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA401999)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David M. Horwitz, Judge. Affirmed. Heather J. Manolakas, under appointmen t by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 Defendant Kahinda Welton appeals from the denial of his motion to award additional custody credits. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 30, 2012, defendant was charged with grand th eft of personal property. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) 1 It also was alleged that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction for first degree burglary, wh ich required a sentence to state prison in the present case, and that he had served a prior prison term. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170, subd. (h)(3), 667.5, subd. (b).) On September 4, 2012, defendant en tered an open plea of guilty with the understanding that the court would strike the prior serious felony conviction and the sentence for the prior prison term and impos e a three-year term in state prison.

Defendant was sentenced in acco rdance with that understandi ng and awarded eight days of custody credit and eight da ys of conduct credit. On February 26, 2013, defendant file d a motion to correct the abstract of judgment. Defendant asserted he was entitled to 16 days of custody credit and the same

number of conduct credits. The trial court deni ed the motion and this appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brie f that raised no issues and asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On October 23, 2013, we sent defendan t a letter informing him of the nature of the appeal that had been filed an d advising him that he had 30 days to submit a supplemental brief setting forth any c ontentions that he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 We have independently reviewed the record. The compla int shows defendant committed the grand theft on August 28, 2012, a nd was placed in custody that day. He entered his guilty plea on September 4. The c ourt properly calculated that defendant was in custody for eight days when he entered his plea and awarded the correct number of custody and conduct credits. We are satisfie d there are no arguable issues, and defendant has received effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him. ( Smith v.

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-279; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 1 06, 123-124.)

DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant’s motion to award additional custody credits is

affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EDMON, J. *

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

MANELLA, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.