Filed 2/20/14 P. v. Avakyan CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HARRY AVAKYAN,

Defendant and Appellant. B250746

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA331416)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Lo s Angeles County, Drew E. Edwards, Judge. Affirmed.

Stephen M. Hinkle, 

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

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 Defendant and appellant, Harry Avakyan, appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for additional pre-sentence custody credits. 1 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL BACKGROUND Following a jury trial, Avakyan was found guilty of leaving the scene of an accident and multiple counts of fe lony drunk driving. On dire ct appeal, this court found a number of errors, including that Avakyan had been awarded an excessive number of presentence custody credits. ( People v. Avakyan (Nov. 8, 2010, B218926 [nonpub. opn.].) This court, accordingly, ordered the trial court to reduce Avakya n’s custody credits pursuant to Penal Code secti on 2933.1 and to forward an am ended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections. ( People v. Avakyan, supra , B218926.) At proceedings held on January 28, 2011, the trial court re -sentenced Avakyan an d modified the number

of his credits. At proceedings held on April 4, 2013, the trial court prepared a minute order indicating it had “read and considered th e correspondence from the Department of Corrections regarding the defendant’s cust ody credits awarded on re-sentencing [on January 28, 2011].” The trial court also indi cated it had reviewed the court file from the matter and the applicable court rules. The tr ial court then ordered that “the minute order of [January 28, 2011] be ame nded, nunc pro tunc, to reflecta total of 684 days [of] custody credits (595 actual days plus 89 go od time/work time days). [¶] [The] [c]ourt further order[ed] that an ame nded abstract of judgment be prepared and forwarded to the Department of Corrections.” On June 13, 2013, Avakyan, acting in pr opria persona, filed in the trial court an “Emergency Motion to Correct [the] Abstract of Judgment to Reflect Pre-Sentence InCustody Credits Pursuant to People v. Brown [] (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314.” 2 On July 16,

1 A defendant may appeal “[f]rom any or der made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party.” (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b).)

2 In People v. Brown (2012 ) 54 Cal.4th 314 at page 323, the court determined the amended Penal Code section 4019, which incr eased the number of pre-sentence custody3 2013, the trial court issued a minute orde r indicating it had read and considered Avakyan’s motion and had reviewed the court file. The trial court then denied the

motion. On August 14, 2013, Avakyan filed a timely notice of appeal.

CONTENTIONS

After examination of the r ecord, appointed appellate coun sel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this c ourt to conduct an independent review of the

record. By notice filed November 27, 2013, the clerk of this court advised Avakyan to submit within 30 days any cont entions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.

REVIEW ON APPEAL

We have examined the entire record an d are satisfied counsel has complied fully with counsel’s responsibilities. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)

credits available to inmates in some instances, applied prospectively only. Moreover, Avakyan was not eligible for additional pre-se ntence credits as he had been convicted of a serious felony in that he had inflicted great bo dily injury on at leas t one of the victims. (See Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a); § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8); § 667.5, subd. (c); § 2933.1, subd. (a).)4 DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ALDRICH, J.

We concur:

KLEIN, P. J.

KITCHING, J.