Filed 12/3/13 P. v. Olmos 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

J ORGE JESUS OLMOS,

Defendant and Appellant. B247241

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. KA092784)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Wade Olson, Judge. Affirmed.

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon,

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

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

Jorge Jesus Olmo s appeals from an order of the trial court denying his

motion to correct his custody credits pursuant to recent amendments to Penal Code

section 4019. 1 We affirm the order.

Appellant was charged by information with attempted murder (§ 664 / 187,

subd. (a)) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The information

included firearm and gang allegations (§§ 12022.53 , 186.22 ) and alleged that

appellant had suffered four prior convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

Appellant entered a no contest plea to the attempted murder charge, and the

court dismissed the o ther count. T he court sentenced appellant to a term of nine

years and awarded him 414 days of actual time credit and 62 days of conduct

credit, for a total of 476 days of presentence credit.

On February 22, 2013, appellant moved to correct his presente nce custody

credits , relying on October 2011 amendments to section 4019 that provided

enhanced conduct credits. (See People v. Rajanayagam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th

42, 48

- 50 [explaining the amendments].) The trial court denied his motion.

Appellant appeal ed the court’s order.

After review of the record, appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed an

opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to the

holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

On May 17, 2013, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to

submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has

been received to date.

Appellant’s conduct credits are limited by section 2933.1, which operates as

an exception to sect ion 4019 where the defendant is convicted of a violent felony

under section 667.5, subdivision (c). ( People v. Brewer (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

457, 462.) Attempted murder is a violent felony under section 667.5, subdivision

(c)(12). Appellant’s conduct cr edits thus are limited to 15 percent of his actual

days in custody. ( Ibid. )

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues

exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende

procedure and our rev iew of the record, received adequate and effective appellate

review of the judgment entered against him in this case. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000)

528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112

- 113.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

N OT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

SUZUKAWA, J.